Seiran Aleksanian, a Russian national, along with his wife Tatiana Udovitsa and child M.A., sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on Aleksanian's opposition to Russia's war in Ukraine. The Immigration Judge denied Aleksanian's claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision. The petitioners argued that the agency erred by failing to consider the cumulative effect of past harm and discrimination, and they claimed the agency did not adequately address their particular social groups or the derivative claims of the family members. The case reached the Ninth Circuit on a petition for review of the BIA's order.
The Ninth Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard, requiring petitioners to show that the evidence compels the conclusion that the agency's findings were erroneous. First, the court addressed the cumulative-effect argument. While the court acknowledged that the BIA must review the cumulative effect of past harm under Salguero Sosa v. Garland, it found that the Immigration Judge had explicitly considered the harm cumulatively and concluded it did not rise to the level of persecution. The BIA agreed with this determination, so the agency did not err. Second, regarding future persecution, the court found the record did not compel a finding of an objectively well-founded fear. Aleksanian was not an opposition politician, activist, or lawyer, and he did not publicly display anti-war messaging. Notably, police did not arrest him even after he expressed anti-war views to officers. Third, the court held the agency was not required to analyze specific particular social groups because the lead petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution, making those findings unnecessary. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the agency needed to separately analyze the derivative claims of the family members, noting that the alleged unique basis for the child's claim was already raised and considered in the lead petitioner's application.
The petition is dismissed, and the BIA's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief remains in full force. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The decision reinforces that petitioners must provide evidence compelling a conclusion contrary to the agency's findings, particularly regarding the lack of public profile or specific targeting required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for anti-war views.