Filed: Jul. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-119-ag Martynyuk v. Holder BIA Montante, IJ A096 425 953 A096 425 954 A096 425 955 A096 425 956 A096 425 957 A096 425 958 A096 425 959 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT,
Summary: 11-119-ag Martynyuk v. Holder BIA Montante, IJ A096 425 953 A096 425 954 A096 425 955 A096 425 956 A096 425 957 A096 425 958 A096 425 959 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, ..
More
11-119-ag
Martynyuk v. Holder
BIA
Montante, IJ
A096 425 953
A096 425 954
A096 425 955
A096 425 956
A096 425 957
A096 425 958
A096 425 959
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 11th day of July, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 MYKOLA MARTYNYUK, SVITLANA MARTYNYUK,
14 MYKOLA MARTYNYUK, VOLODYMYR OLINCHUK,
15 ZHANNA OLINCHUK, MARIYA OLINCHUK,
16 MAR’YAN OLINCHUK,
17 Petitioners,
18
19 11-119-ag
20 v. NAC
21
22 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
23 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
24 Respondent.
25 ______________________________________
26
1
2 FOR PETITIONERS: Anne E. Doebler, Buffalo, New York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
5 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
6 Assistant Director; Franklin M.
7 Johnson, Jr., Trial Attorney, Office
8 of Immigration Litigation, Civil
9 Division, United States Department
10 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
15 is DENIED.
16 Petitioners, natives and citizens of Ukraine, seek
17 review of a December 22, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming
18 the April 5, 2010, decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”),
19 denying their application for asylum, withholding of
20 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
21 (“CAT”). In re Mykola Martynyuk et. al, Nos. A096 425
22 953/954/955/956/957/958/959 (B.I.A. Dec. 22, 2010), aff’g
23 No. A096 425 953/954/955/956/957/958/959 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo
24 April 5, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
25 underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
26 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
27 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
28 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
2
1 applicable standards of review are well established.
2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v.
3 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Petitioners have
4 not challenged the agency’s denial of CAT relief.
5 Accordingly, we address only their applications for asylum
6 and withholding of removal.
7 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
8 determination that Petitioners failed to establish past
9 persecution and a well-founded fear of persecution.
10 Martynyuk and his children testified that members of the
11 Ukrainian government and local community discriminated
12 against them on account of their beliefs as Pentecostal
13 Christians, leading to violent attacks against their family,
14 threats to their persons and livelihood, confiscation of
15 their land, and persistent ridicule. The agency reasonably
16 found that the mistreatment Petitioners suffered, in the
17 aggregate, did not rise to the level of persecution because:
18 (1) the “bodily injuries” that Mykola and Volodymyr
19 sustained in one of the two attacks were minor, see Mei Fun
20 Wong v. Holder,
633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011); Beskovic v.
21 Gonzales,
467 F.3d 223, 226 n.3 (2d Cir. 2006); (2) absent
22 serious physical harm, ridicule, discrimination and threats
3
1 constitute mere harassment, Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of
2 Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006); and (3) they did
3 not allege that the economic deprivation they suffered was
4 so severe that it threatened their lives or freedom, see
5 Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 170-71 (BIA 2007).
6 Absent the presumption of future persecution, the
7 agency reasonably found that Petitioners failed to
8 independently establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
9 Although various State Department reports in the record
10 referenced the destruction of, or interference with, church
11 property and title and criticism towards Christians, they
12 did not show a pattern or practice of violence against
13 evangelical Christians. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2),
14 1208.16(b)(2); Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d 135, 142-
15 43 (2d Cir. 2008). Furthermore, contrary to Petitioners’
16 argument, the Lautenberg Amendment, which is not binding in
17 asylum proceedings, is too vague to establish that
18 evangelical Christians are typically targeted in Ukraine.
19 See Pub. L. No. 101-167, Title V, § 599D, 103 Stat. 1261
20 (1989) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1157). Because substantial
21 evidence supports the agency’s determination that
22 Petitioners failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
23 persecution on account of their religion, the agency did not
4
1 err in concluding that they failed to establish their
2 eligibility for either asylum or withholding of removal.
3 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
4 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED.
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
10
5
