Filed: Oct. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-10-2003 Paputchi v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-3617 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "Paputchi v. Atty Gen USA" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 209. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/209 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinio
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-10-2003 Paputchi v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-3617 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "Paputchi v. Atty Gen USA" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 209. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/209 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinion..
More
Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-10-2003
Paputchi v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-3617
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Paputchi v. Atty Gen USA" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 209.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/209
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
02-3617
____________
RUKIE PAPUTCHI,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF IMM IGRATION APPEALS
___________
BIA No. A70 903 825
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 34.1(a)
September 15, 2003
Before: ALITO, AMBRO, and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 10, 2003)
__________________
OPINION
____________________
PER CURIAM:
This is a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
holding that the petitioner had not established that she was eligible for asylum or
withholding of deportation. The petitioner, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, claims that
she was persecuted and fears persecution in Bulgaria because she is a Muslim of Turkish
descent. Rejecting the petitioner’s arguments, the BIA concluded that the petitioner had
not established past persecution because her “unfortunate and discriminatory experiences
over a decade ago” did not amount to “persecution” in the sense relevant here. In
addition, in light of the evidence before the BIA of current country conditions in Bulgaria,
the Board held that the petitioner had not met her burden of establishing a well-founded
fear of persecution.
We have considered all of the arguments advanced by the petitioner in her petition
for review, but we find no basis for granting the petition. We agree with the Board that
the past treatment alleged by the petitioner, although deplorable, does not rise to the high
level required to constitute “persecution.” See Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233,(3d Cir. 1993).
On the issue of whether the petitioner established a well-founded fear of future
persecution if returned to Bulgaria, the Board implicitly found that conditions in that
country are now such that the petitioner has no reasonable ground for fearing that she will
be subjected to persecution based on her religion or ethnic background if she is returned.
Our review of this factual finding regarding current conditions in Bulgaria is limited. See
2
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)(2002); Abdille v. Ashcroft,
242 F.3d 477, 483 (3d Cir. 2001).
Since the Board’s finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record, we must
sustain it.
We have considered all of the petitioner’s arguments, but find no basis for granting
her petition. Therefore, the petition is denied, and the decision of the Board is affirmed.
3