Background
Pavel Kuzin, a native and citizen of Russia, petitioned for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge had found that Kuzin did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate he would be individually targeted for persecution if returned to Russia.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not err in declining to consider Kuzin’s group-based theories of future persecution because they were not raised before the immigration judge. The court further declined to consider contentions regarding corroborating evidence procedures because Kuzin failed to raise these issues before the Board, rendering them unexhausted. Finally, the court found that the Agency reasonably evaluated the evidence, including sworn declarations and social media screenshots, and that no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach a conclusion contrary to the Agency’s findings.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the requirement for non-citizens to raise all theories of persecution, including group-based claims, at the immigration judge level to preserve them for appellate review. It also confirms that procedural challenges regarding evidence corroboration must be exhausted before the Board of Immigration Appeals to be considered by the courts.