Ivanov v. Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 11-1814
    PAVEL IVANOV; IRINA KOZOCHKINA,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
    OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
    Before
    Torruella, Thompson, and Kayatta,
    Circuit Judges.
    Randy Olen, with whom Robert D. Watt, Jr. was on brief, for
    petitioners.
    Andrew Nathan O'Malley, with whom Stuart F. Delery, Acting
    Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
    Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, and D.
    Nicholas Harling, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, were
    on brief, for respondent.
    November 15, 2013
    THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.         Petitioners Pavel Ivanov and
    Irina Kozochkina seek review of a final order of removal. They say
    the immigration courts erred by finding that the persecution Ivanov
    experienced in Russia was not "on account of" his Pentecostal
    faith.        We agree.   After careful consideration of the decision and
    the record, we vacate and remand for additional proceedings.
    Facts and Procedural History
    Petitioners are natives and citizens of Russia.           Ivanov
    is   a       long-standing   member   of   the    Pentecostal   Church,   which
    Kozochkina, a Baptist, now attends.1
    Petitioners entered the United States in May 2003 on
    five-month educational exchange visas.2              Having heard from family
    and fellow Pentecostals in Russia of ongoing threats and violence
    against persons of their faith, Petitioners overstayed their visas
    and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
    1
    Petitioners' claims derive from Ivanov's experiences as a
    Pentecostal in Russia in the 1990s and early 2000s. Given that
    Kozochkina's claims are derivative of Ivanov's, we will discuss
    only Ivanov's entitlement to relief.
    2
    Petitioners' visas list September 2003 as their expiration
    date. However, because Petitioners never entered the educational
    programs for which their visas were issued, the government asserts
    that their status actually expired in June 2003, thirty days after
    their entry. This discrepancy is not relevant to this appeal.
    -2-
    the     Convention     Against     Torture    (CAT)   in   September    2004.3
    Petitioners were married in Newport, Rhode Island in October 2004.
    In August 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
    served Petitioners with Notices to Appear, charging them with
    removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act.                 See 8
    U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Petitioners filed amended applications for
    asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in June 2007.                They
    appeared before an Immigration Judge (IJ) in a series of hearings
    between 2006 and 2009.        Because the IJ found Ivanov credible, we
    recount       the   facts   here   as    Ivanov   presented   them     in    his
    documentation and testimony.
    Ivanov was born in Chelyabinsk, Russia on November 21,
    1983.       His parents raised him in the Pentecostal faith, practicing
    in secret during the anti-religious Soviet regime, then joining a
    church in 1995 as Russia began to open up to religion after the
    fall of communism.
    Pentecostals represent a religious minority in Russia.4
    Though the Russian Constitution provides for freedom of religion,
    "[m]any citizens firmly believe that adherence to the Russian
    3
    Because Petitioners missed the one-year filing deadline for
    asylum by only three months, the Immigration Judge gave Petitioners
    "the benefit of the doubt" and treated their claim as timely.
    4
    United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy,
    Human Rights and Labor, Russia: Country Reports on Human Rights
    Practices       20     (Mar.      2007),      available       at
    http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78835.htm [hereinafter
    2006 Country Report].
    -3-
    Orthodox Church . . . is at the heart of their national identity,"5
    and   "members    of    minority      and     'non-traditional'    religions,"
    including Pentecostals, "continue to encounter prejudice, societal
    discrimination,     and   in   some    cases    physical    attacks."6      Local
    authorities reportedly do not adequately respond to such attacks.7
    For example, prior to 2005, Evangelicals and Pentecostals in
    various regions reported the vandalizing and burning of prayer
    houses,     including   in   Ivanov's       hometown   of   Chelyabinsk,    where
    authorities made no arrests.8
    Ivanov's memories of problems for his church date back to
    March 1996, when he learned that members of the Russian Orthodox
    Church intercepted Pentecostal literature sent from France.                Then,
    on January 7, 1997 (Orthodox Christmas), he heard that a group of
    "Barkashovtsy" — Russian nationalist, neo-Nazi "skinheads"9 — had
    burned his church's office and beat up the night watchman.                 Later,
    on May 30, 1999, while Ivanov and his parents were visiting their
    5
    United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy,
    Human Rights and Labor, Russia: International Religious Freedom
    Report       1     (Sept.        2006),       available          at
    http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2006/71403.htm [hereinafter 2006
    Religious Freedom Report].
    6
    2006 Country Report at 1.
    7
    United States Commission on International Religious Freedom,
    Policy Focus on Russia 14 (Fall 2006) [hereinafter Policy Focus].
    8
    2006 Religious Freedom Report at 15.
    9
    Henceforth, "skinheads," for ease of reference.
    -4-
    pastor's home for Pentecost, a mob led by a disgraced Russian
    Orthodox priest attacked the home, beating the pastor's wife,
    looting the premises, and burning religious literature.
    Ivanov   testified   that    he   was   personally   mistreated
    because of his religious beliefs on several occasions.                  First, on
    November 21, 1999, during Ivanov's baptism into the Pentecostal
    faith on his sixteenth birthday, bystanders heckled and threw
    bottles at celebrants during the initial ceremony at a public pool.
    That evening, while rites continued at the prayer house, skinheads
    burst        in,    shot    rubber   bullets,    confiscated    literature,   and
    ransacked the house.
    Second, on April 20, 2002, the anniversary of Hitler's
    birth, skinheads attacked Ivanov as he left the church-run drug
    rehabilitation center where he volunteered.10                His church operated
    the center as part of its mission of public service.                      Patients
    10
    Ivanov recounts that the skinheads were often more
    aggressive around the time of "Hitler's Birthday." He cites April
    20, 2000, as another example of when skinheads attacked a
    Pentecostal prayer house. They wreaked havoc and covered the walls
    with insulting slurs and swastika graffiti.           Luckily, no
    parishioners were present or harmed.
    Ivanov's assertion that skinheads commemorate "Hitler's
    Birthday" is confirmed by the 2006 Country Report, which
    highlighted a display of Nazi posters on April 20, 2005 as
    occurring "on the anniversary of Hitler's birth." 2006 Country
    Report at 21. It also reported the firebombing of a Baptist church
    in Chelyabinsk and the arson of an Adventist church in another
    region during that same month (though it did not specify whether
    those events also occurred on April 20). 
    Id. at 20.
    -5-
    received medical treatment and followed a strict regimen of daily
    bible study.
    That   night,   as   Ivanov   left   the   center,   four   young
    skinheads "knocked [him] down and dragged [him] 3 blocks" to a
    basement where he was "chained and beaten with full plastic water
    bottles."   They handcuffed him, then applied an electric shock to
    one hand and put cigarettes out on the other.          They told him he had
    two days to figure out how to close the church's "'satanic'
    dispensary."   The skinheads then left Ivanov for nearly three days
    without food and water.      His parents filed a police report, but to
    their knowledge no action was taken.         Fortunately, the skinheads
    released Ivanov of their own accord a few days later.            It was only
    after Ivanov's release that he realized the drug rehabilitation
    center's work interfered with the skinheads' lucrative drug trade.
    Third, in February 2003, Ivanov "was summoned to the
    local police department."          There, a federal security service
    officer identified as Major Kozlov ordered Ivanov to provide false
    testimony in the prosecution of his pastor.            Prosecutors accused
    the pastor of using hypnosis to extort a ten-percent tithe from
    congregants.   Major Kozlov told Ivanov he "would be sorry for not
    cooperating" with the prosecution.
    A few days later, in early March 2003, four skinheads
    attacked Ivanov in the lobby of his apartment building.           They beat
    him with batons while wearing rubber gloves, bruising his legs so
    -6-
    severely that he missed school for a week.          Although they wore no
    uniforms, Ivanov knew they were skinheads by the weapons they used.
    Because the beating occurred shortly after Ivanov's conversation
    with Major Kozlov, Ivanov believes the skinheads were retaliating
    against him for his refusal to testify against his pastor.           Ivanov
    called the police when he got back to his apartment, but no one
    ever came.       Ivanov did not seek further police assistance or
    medical attention because he thought it would be futile.
    Fourth, on April 22, 2003, unknown assailants threw
    Molotov cocktails at Ivanov's home in the middle of the night.
    Ivanov, his father, and his mother were home.                  Fortunately,
    Ivanov's mother was awake and the family was able to put out the
    resulting fire.     That same night, the church's drug rehabilitation
    center also was set on fire.          Ivanov did not see the people who
    threw   the    Molotov   cocktails,   but   based   on   the   perpetrators'
    precision and the familiar timing of the attacks — almost exactly
    one year after skinheads accosted him as he left the center and
    just two days after "Hitler's Birthday" — he believes the skinheads
    were again responsible.       Petitioners left Russia and came to the
    United States roughly one month after this incident.
    In his asylum application, Ivanov stated that he feared
    if he returned to Russia, skinheads would "sever[e]ly harm[] or
    kill[]" him, or the federal security service would imprison him on
    "trumped-up" charges or confine him to a mental facility under a
    -7-
    false diagnosis, because of his membership in a "non-traditional"
    sect and his refusal to testify falsely against his pastor.            At a
    hearing before the IJ in July 2007, after recounting his past
    mistreatment, Ivanov said he feared if he returned to Russia, "the
    same thing would [happen]."   He also said he would "continue to be
    [subject] to the same lawlessness that [he] felt before."
    When Ivanov's attorney asked if he had any fear of the
    government,   Ivanov   explained   that   it   was   "a   well-known    and
    established fact that . . . the skinheads . . . are connected to
    the government structure." He elaborated that because he "look[ed]
    like [a] Russian" and his religious beliefs were not outwardly
    apparent, the only way the "young kids" who attacked him would know
    that he did not fit their view of a "pure nation [or] pure race in
    Russia" is by the guidance or influence of "somebody from above."
    In July 2009, the IJ delivered an oral decision denying
    Petitioners relief. Although the IJ found Ivanov's testimony to be
    credible and generally consistent, he determined that Ivanov "fell
    short of credibility" where he drew "conclusions . . . from the
    facts" and engaged in "speculation . . . with regard to the abusive
    activity of the skinheads."    Accepting for the sake of discussion
    that Ivanov's experiences amounted to past persecution, the IJ
    dismissed Ivanov's assertion that the skinheads were connected to
    government authorities as mere supposition without record support.
    He further concluded that Ivanov's admission that "the skinheads
    -8-
    wanted to close the [church's] drug rehabilitation center because
    it was having a negative effect on their drug trade" meant that
    "[t]he motivation of the skinheads was an intention to profit by
    criminal activity, rather than to punish [Ivanov] and others for
    engaging in the Pentecostal faith."                   Finally, he found that
    Ivanov's fear of return to Russia was based on "the general
    lawlessness of the place," rather than abuse due to his religion.
    As a result, the IJ found that Ivanov had not shown he
    experienced persecution "on account of" a protected ground, and
    thus he failed to qualify for asylum.               Ivanov therefore also fell
    short of the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
    Finally, Ivanov's claim for CAT relief failed because there was no
    evidence that Ivanov had been or would be tortured at the hands of
    public officials or with the government's acquiescence if he
    returned to Russia.           The IJ consequently denied Petitioners'
    applications but granted them voluntary departure.
    Petitioners     appealed.        On     review,     the   Board    of
    Immigration     Appeals     (BIA)   affirmed    the    IJ's     decision     without
    opinion.      This appeal followed.
    Standard of Review
    Ordinarily, we review decisions of the BIA, not the IJ.
    Larios v. Holder, 
    608 F.3d 105
    , 107 (1st Cir. 2010).                       However,
    where,   as    here,   "the   BIA   summarily       affirms     the   IJ's   asylum
    -9-
    determination, . . . we review the IJ's decision as if it were the
    decision of the BIA."           
    Id. We review
         an   IJ's      findings   of     fact,   including     the
    determination of whether persecution occurred on account of a
    protected ground, under the familiar and deferential substantial
    evidence standard.          Lopez de Hincapie v. Gonzales, 
    494 F.3d 213
    ,
    217 (1st Cir. 2007). Under this rule, we respect the IJ's findings
    if "supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on
    the record considered as a whole."                       
    Larios, 608 F.3d at 107
    (quoting Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481 (1992)).          However, "our deference is not unlimited,"
    and   "we   may    not    affirm       [the    IJ's    findings]"       if   "we   cannot
    conscientiously         find    that    the     evidence       supporting    [them]      is
    substantial, when viewed in the light that the record in its
    entirety furnishes, including the body of evidence opposed to the
    [IJ's] view."        Kartasheva v. Holder, 
    582 F.3d 96
    , 105 (1st Cir.
    2009) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Indeed,     we    are   obligated       to    reject     the    IJ's    findings    if   a
    "reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
    contrary."        Precetaj v. Holder, 
    649 F.3d 72
    , 75 (1st Cir. 2011)
    (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(b)).
    Discussion
    We begin with a brief overview of pertinent asylum law.
    To qualify for asylum, an alien must establish that he is a
    -10-
    refugee.      8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A).          A refugee is a person who is
    unable   or     unwilling   to   return     to    his   homeland    "because   of
    persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
    race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
    group, or political opinion."         8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).          Proof of
    past persecution creates a presumption of a well-founded fear of
    future persecution that the government may rebut.              Harutyunyan v.
    Gonzales, 
    421 F.3d 64
    , 67 (1st Cir. 2005); see also 8 C.F.R. §
    1208.13(b)(1).
    Persecution is not defined by statute, but we know that
    it   requires    "more   than    ordinary    harassment,     mistreatment,     or
    suffering."      Lopez de 
    Hincapie, 494 F.3d at 217
    .               To constitute
    persecution, abuse "must have reached a fairly high threshold of
    seriousness, as well as some regularity and frequency." Rebenko v.
    Holder, 
    693 F.3d 87
    , 92 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Alibeaj v.
    Gonzales, 
    469 F.3d 188
    , 191 (1st Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    Persecution also "always implies some connection to
    government action or inaction," whether in the form of direct
    government action, "government-supported action, or government's
    unwillingness or inability to control private conduct."                  Sok v.
    Mukasey, 
    526 F.3d 48
    , 54 (1st Cir. 2008) (citations omitted)
    (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Burbiene v. Holder,
    
    568 F.3d 251
    , 255 (1st Cir. 2009).           Local authorities' failure to
    -11-
    respond   to   prior   persecution   may   demonstrate   a   government's
    unwillingness or inability to control persecutors.            Cf. Ortiz-
    Araniba v. Keisler, 
    505 F.3d 39
    , 42 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting
    
    Harutyunyan, 421 F.3d at 68
    ) ("In determining whether a government
    is willing and able to control persecutors, . . . a prompt response
    by local authorities to prior incidents is 'the most telling
    datum.'").
    For purposes of asylum, an alien must also demonstrate
    that the persecution he experienced occurred "on account of" a
    statutorily-protected ground. Lopez de 
    Hincapie, 494 F.3d at 217
    .
    To meet this "nexus" requirement, an alien must provide sufficient
    evidence of an actual connection between the harm he suffered and
    his protected trait.    
    Id. at 217-18.
        This does not require him "to
    identify [his] antagonists with absolute certainty," 
    id. at 219,
    or
    "to show that the impermissible motivation was the sole motivation
    for the persecution," Sompotan v. Mukasey, 
    533 F.3d 63
    , 69 (1st
    Cir. 2008) (citing In re S-P-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 486, 490 (BIA 1996))
    (emphasis added).      Rather, he must demonstrate only "that the
    persecution was based, 'at least in part,' on an impermissible
    motivation."    
    Id. (quoting Sanchez
    Jimenez v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 
    492 F.3d 1223
    , 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2007)).
    In many asylum cases, the central issue is whether the
    applicant's story of past abuse is credible. Precetaj, 649 F.3d at
    -12-
    76.   The IJ has "considerable latitude in evaluating credibility,"
    and its assessment receives substantial weight.                 
    Id. In this
    case, the IJ found that Ivanov's testimony about
    the mistreatment he experienced was credible, generally internally
    consistent,    and   consistent       with    the    record.      Based   on   this
    testimony, the IJ observed it was "a close question" as to whether
    Ivanov established past persecution, but assumed for the purpose of
    discussion that he had done so.              Relying on the IJ's credibility
    determination,    we   find    that    Ivanov       met   the   past   persecution
    threshold.
    As outlined above, Ivanov testified about four specific
    occasions of mistreatment because of his Pentecostal faith within
    a four-year period: (1) when skinheads violently interrupted his
    baptism ceremony at a prayer house in November 1999; (2) when
    skinheads     attacked   him     as     he     left       the   church-run     drug
    rehabilitation center where he volunteered, beat him up, handcuffed
    and shocked him, and left him in a basement for three days without
    food and water in April 2002; (3) when skinheads attacked him in
    his apartment lobby a few days after he refused to comply with a
    federal security officer's forceful request that he testify against
    his pastor in March 2003; and (4) when unidentified assailants
    launched Molotov cocktails at his home in April 2003.
    Ivanov also testified to a history of mistreatment of his
    congregation reaching back to his youth, including the repeated
    -13-
    confiscation of religious literature, looting and burning of prayer
    houses, and violence against church members.    Ivanov's testimony
    was consistent with U.S. State Department human rights reports
    describing the mistreatment of Pentecostals and persons of other
    minority religions in Russia, including incidents occurring on or
    around the anniversary of Hitler's birth.11
    Considered together, these events suggest a pattern of
    escalating abuse directed at Ivanov beginning the day he was
    baptized and continuing until he left the country. The harm Ivanov
    suffered, particularly during his three-day detention in April
    2002, rose above "ordinary harassment, mistreatment, or suffering."
    See 
    Sok, 526 F.3d at 54
    (six events occurring over the course of
    four years, considered together, suggested a pattern of abuse,
    where the most serious incident involved a three-day detention).
    Ivanov's mistreatment occurred regularly and with some frequency
    for four years.   Viewed within the broader context of intolerance
    and abuse of Pentecostals in Russia as documented in the U.S. State
    Department human rights reports, these incidents reach the "fairly
    high threshold of seriousness" required of persecution.         See
    Pulisir v. Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 302
    , 308-09 (1st Cir. 2008) ("Common
    sense suggests that larger social, cultural, and political forces
    can lend valuable context to particular incidents and, thus, can
    11
    See 2006 Country Report at 1, 18-22; 2006 Religious Freedom
    Report at 9-15.
    -14-
    influence   the   weight   that   a    factfinder   may   assign   to   those
    incidents.").
    Seen in this context, these abuses also demonstrate the
    requisite nexus to government action or inaction.             Here, Ivanov
    testified that his parents contacted the police when skinheads
    kidnapped him for three days in April 2002, but no follow-up action
    was taken. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Ivanov's
    abusers were ever apprehended, punished, or even looked for, in
    spite of having severely beaten and detained him for three days.12
    This is consistent with reports that local authorities do not
    adequately respond to attacks against members of minority religious
    communities, including Pentecostals.13
    12
    We do not, as the dissent suggests, fault the police for not
    finding Ivanov during the days he was detained. We are certainly
    aware that even the best police work will not always enable police
    to halt a criminal in the act. However, here, there is no evidence
    of the police either seeking Ivanov while he was kidnapped or
    contacting Ivanov after he was released to try to find his
    attackers or to ensure his protection from future violence. We
    consider this to be the very definition of police inaction.
    13
    Policy Focus at 14 (citing, inter alia, an attack by youths
    following a Pentecostal service in 2006 where authorities failed to
    act). Indeed, one of the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom's
    key concerns about Russia is "[t]he rise in xenophobia and ethnic
    and religious intolerance, resulting in an increased number of
    violent attacks and hate crimes, and the government's failure to
    address this serious problem adequately." 
    Id. at 3.
    Their report
    details a range of attacks motivated by religious or ethnic hatred
    and the authorities' lackluster responses, such as classifying hate
    crimes as mere "hooliganism." 
    Id. at 3-6.
    The 2006 Country Report
    likewise noted that while "[a]uthorities usually investigated
    incidents of religious vandalism and violence, . . . arrests of
    suspects were extremely infrequent and convictions were rare."
    2006 Country Report at 20.
    -15-
    Furthermore, skinheads attacked Ivanov in March 2003 only
    days after a federal security officer tried to intimidate him into
    testifying against his pastor.             This fits with accounts that
    members of the federal security service "increasingly treat[] the
    leadership of some minority religious groups as security threats."14
    It also aligns with religious leaders' apprehensions "that Russian
    government officials provide tacit or active support to a view held
    by many ethnic Russians that Orthodoxy is the country's so-called
    'true religion.'"15   Moreover, it shows that local authorities have
    significant    opportunities   to    restrict    individuals'   religious
    freedoms, leading to great variation between the laws on the books
    and national policies on the one hand, and the on-the-ground
    reality on the other.16
    Ivanov contacted the police immediately after the March
    2003 attack, but again no one came to his aid.         As in April 2002,
    there is no evidence that the police made any efforts to apprehend
    or punish Ivanov's attackers.         It is no wonder Ivanov thought
    further attempts to elicit police assistance would be "futile."
    Although the IJ did not credit Ivanov's assertion that
    skinheads were "used by the police as surrogates" or "aided and
    abetted by the authorities," Ivanov was not required to make such
    14
    2006 Religious Freedom Report at 1.
    15
    Policy Focus at 4.
    16
    2006 Country Report at 18-19.
    -16-
    a showing to qualify for asylum. Ivanov had only to establish that
    the government was unable or unwilling to control the skinheads'
    actions, see 
    Sok, 526 F.3d at 53
    , and it appears clear from the
    record that this is the case.             Local authorities either failed to
    take        action   against,    or     perhaps    even    supported,      Ivanov's
    persecutors.         Their failure to respond signals their unwillingness
    or inability to control Ivanov's persecutors.17                 Cf. 
    Ortiz-Araniba, 505 F.3d at 42
    .        Accordingly, we make explicit what the IJ assumed
    and hold that Ivanov demonstrated past persecution linked to
    government action or inaction.
    We next turn to the question of nexus to a protected
    ground.       Although the IJ was willing to accept that Ivanov proved
    past    persecution,      he    found   that     Ivanov   did    not   establish   a
    sufficient       connection     between    the    abuse   he    suffered   and   his
    religion.       As set out above, the IJ provided two reasons for his
    finding: (1) he interpreted Ivanov's admission that skinheads
    opposed the drug rehabilitation center because of its negative
    impact on their drug trade as an indication that they were not
    punishing Ivanov for engaging in his Pentecostal faith; and (2) he
    17
    The dissent goes out of its way and far beyond the record
    to say we are assuming that only actual arrests by government
    authorities — in Russia or the United States — demonstrate their
    willingness or ability to control religious persecutors. We said
    no such thing. The evidence here not only shows a failure to
    arrest, but a total failure to investigate or follow up with Ivanov
    on any of the occasions he was attacked.       This utter lack of
    intervention or action compels us to conclude Ivanov cannot live
    safely in Russia without facing persecution.
    -17-
    concluded that Ivanov's fear of return to Russia was based on "the
    general lawlessness of the place, rather than mistreatment on
    account of" his religion.         Considering the record as a whole, we
    are unable to find that either of these rationales or the IJ's
    ultimate determination was "supported by reasonable, substantial,
    and probative evidence."18
    First, the IJ's fixation on the skinheads' drug trade to
    the exclusion of any other motivation is misguided on principle and
    on fact.      As a matter of principle, we do not require an alien to
    show that an impermissible motivation was the sole motivation for
    his persecution.        
    Sompotan, 533 F.3d at 69
    .          We have noted that
    aliens "seldom know the 'exact motivation[s]' of their persecutors
    and,    of    course,    persecutors      may   often   have    more   than   one
    motivation."     
    Id. (alteration in
    original) (quoting In re S-P-, 21
    I. & N. at 490).        Our sister circuits agree.       See, e.g., Menghesha
    v. Gonzales, 
    450 F.3d 142
    , 148 (4th Cir. 2006); Mohideen v.
    Gonzales, 
    416 F.3d 567
    , 570 (7th Cir. 2005); Lukwago v. Ashcroft,
    
    329 F.3d 157
    ,   170    (3d   Cir.    2003);   Girma   v.    Immigration    &
    Naturalization Serv., 
    283 F.3d 664
    , 667 (5th Cir. 2002); Borja v.
    18
    Though the IJ did not point this out as a concern, we note
    preliminarily that Ivanov identified his antagonists with
    sufficient certainty.    Ivanov's use of the term "skinheads" to
    describe his attackers implies that they shared the common
    appearance symbolic of their group membership. Though they did not
    wear uniforms, Ivanov could also identify them by their choice of
    weapons: rubber batons and gloves in March 2003 and Molotov
    cocktails in April 2003.
    -18-
    Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 
    175 F.3d 732
    , 735-36 (9th Cir.
    1999) (en banc); Osorio v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 
    18 F.3d 1017
    , 1028 (2d Cir. 1994).
    The facts of this case illustrate the need for this
    principle.      The   IJ's   determination   that   the   skinheads   were
    motivated only by their "intention to profit by criminal activity"
    ignores both the skinheads' overarching mission and the greater
    pattern of religiously-motivated abuse that Ivanov suffered.           As
    Ivanov noted, the skinheads' raison d'etre is to "purify the
    Russian nation."      They are notoriously xenophobic, racist, anti-
    Muslim, anti-Semitic, and, most relevantly here, intolerant of
    "adherents of 'foreign' religions."19        The skinheads who attacked
    Ivanov in April 2002 may indeed have had an economic interest in
    closing the church's drug rehabilitation center. But they also, at
    their core, undoubtedly opposed the center's religious mission and
    methods.    The center's religious message was inseparable from the
    service it performed: church volunteers operated the center and
    rigorous bible study was integral to patients' treatment.        Indeed,
    it appears that Ivanov's skinhead assailants recognized this and
    gave voice to their anti-religious motivation when they told Ivanov
    to find a way to close the "satanic" center.        That those skinheads
    may have had an additional motive for attacking Ivanov cannot
    19
    See 2006 Country Report at 33.
    -19-
    reasonably be read to refute that they were also acting upon the
    central motive underlying their group identity.
    This is especially true given the other abuse that Ivanov
    suffered.    Remember, the April 2002 attack is only one of four
    events supporting Ivanov's asylum claim.                In the other instances,
    Ivanov   provided       specific    evidence       of   his   attackers'      anti-
    Pentecostal motivation.        For example, in November 1999, skinheads
    attacked his baptism ceremony at a prayer house.                 In March 2003,
    skinheads attacked him a few days after he refused to testify
    against his pastor.         In April 2003, unknown assailants threw
    Molotov cocktails at his house the same night that someone attacked
    the church's drug rehabilitation center. Considered in view of the
    history of attacks against members of his church community and
    religious intolerance in Russia at-large, a reasonable adjudicator
    would be compelled to conclude that each of the attacks, including
    the attack in April 2002, was based, "at least in part," on the
    impermissible     motivation       of   Ivanov's    Pentecostal    faith.       See
    
    Sompotan, 533 F.3d at 69
    .
    Second, the IJ's interpretation of Ivanov's testimony
    that he feared "the same lawlessness" if he returned to Russia to
    mean that Ivanov feared "general lawlessness" in Russia runs
    counter to the record.       The IJ appears to have construed Ivanov's
    statement   out    of    context:       Ivanov   said    he   feared   "the    same
    lawlessness" immediately after he described the specific instances
    -20-
    of abuse discussed above, but the IJ took him to mean he feared
    "lawlessness"   in   Russia   generally.   To   the    contrary,   Ivanov
    consistently maintained in his application and testimony that he
    feared if he returned to Russia skinheads or government authorities
    would harm him due to his religious beliefs.20        The IJ's monocular
    focus on Ivanov's remark, to the exclusion of the balance of
    Ivanov's    statements   alleging    specific    fears     of   targeted
    persecution, is not supported by the record as a whole.
    In sum, viewing the record in its entirety, including the
    evidence the IJ ignored or misconstrued, and relying on the IJ's
    own finding that Ivanov's testimony was generally credible, we
    cannot conscientiously find the IJ's determination that Ivanov did
    not establish the requisite nexus between the persecution he
    suffered and his Pentecostal faith is supported by substantial
    evidence.    While we are mindful of the deferential nature of our
    standard of review, we are also cognizant of our obligation to
    reject the IJ's findings if, as here, a "reasonable adjudicator
    20
    There is also nothing in the record to indicate that Russia
    is awash in the type of general civil strife or violence that we
    have held would not qualify an applicant for asylum. See, e.g.,
    López-Castro v. Holder, 
    577 F.3d 49
    , 54 (1st Cir. 2009) ("A
    country-wide risk of victimization through economic terrorism is
    not the functional equivalent of a statutorily protected ground .
    . . ."); Aguilar-Solis v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 
    168 F.3d 565
    , 572 (1st Cir. 1999) ("Danger resulting from participation
    in general civil strife, without more, does not constitute
    persecution.").
    -21-
    would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." See 
    Precetaj, 649 F.3d at 75
    (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(b)).      It is not the first
    time we have rejected an IJ's findings under this standard.           See,
    e.g., 
    id. at 76;
    Kartasheva, 582 F.3d at 105-06
    ; 
    Sok, 526 F.3d at 56
    , 58; Heng v. Gonzales, 
    493 F.3d 46
    , 49 (1st Cir. 2007);
    Mukamusoni v. Ashcroft, 
    390 F.3d 110
    , 126 (1st Cir. 2004).       And so
    long as our review is not "a hollow exercise in rubber-stamping,"
    we doubt it will be the last.     See Cuko v. Mukasey, 
    522 F.3d 32
    , 41
    (1st Cir. 2008) (Cyr, J., dissenting).
    We   therefore   find   that   Ivanov   has   established    his
    eligibility for asylum. Accordingly, we have no need to proceed to
    Petitioners' requests for withholding of removal or relief under
    CAT, and we do not reach them here.
    Conclusion
    The order of the BIA affirming the IJ's decision is
    vacated and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with
    this decision.
    -Dissenting Opinion Follows-
    -22-
    KAYATTA,        Circuit    Judge,        dissenting.      I    respectfully
    dissent because the record does not compel us to reject the factual
    findings of the immigration judge.                     The immigration judge found
    that the serious abuse and harassment to which Ivanov credibly
    established he was subjected was not "on account of" his religion.
    Rather, the immigration judge concluded, Ivanov faced persecution
    on account of his association with a drug rehab center that posed
    a threat to the skinheads' illicit drug trade.                          The immigration
    judge also found that Ivanov failed to establish the required nexus
    to government acquiescence manifest through its action or inaction.
    Either of these findings, unless reversed, means that Ivanov has
    failed to establish an entitlement to asylum.                               See López de
    Hincapie v. Gonzales, 
    494 F.3d 213
    , 218 (1st Cir. 2007) ("[S]howing
    a   linkage    to       one   of   the   five    statutorily         protected     grounds
    [including religion] is 'critical' to a successful asylum claim."
    (quoting   INS      v.    Elias-Zacarias,         
    502 U.S. 478
    ,       483   (1992)));
    Harutyunyan        v.    Gonzales,       
    421 F.3d 64
    ,     68   (1st     Cir.      2005)
    ("[P]ersecution always implies some connection to government action
    or inaction.").
    As    we    have     previously     held,       the    question      of    the
    persecutor's motivation generates a "fact-specific" inquiry. López
    de 
    Hincapie, 494 F.3d at 218
    .              Similarly, the question of whether
    Ivanov established a connection between the government and his
    -23-
    abuse is also a finding of fact.      See 
    Harutyunyan, 421 F.3d at 68
    .   Our review of both findings is therefore limited by the
    "highly deferential" substantial evidence test.   Larios v. Holder,
    
    608 F.3d 105
    , 107 (1st Cir. 2010).     That test requires that we
    defer to the immigration judge's findings of fact as long as those
    findings are "supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative
    evidence on the record considered as a whole." 
    Id. (quoting Elias-
    Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481
    ).     As we observed more recently, in
    practical terms, the test turns on whether we are "compelled to
    conclude to the contrary."    Precetaj v. Holder, 
    649 F.3d 72
    , 75
    (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
    A.    There Is Substantial Evidence to Support the Finding of Fact
    That Ivanov Was Not Persecuted on Account of His Religion and
    Has Not Established a Realistic Risk of Such Persecution in
    the Future.
    I begin by reviewing Ivanov's testimony, which supports
    the factual finding that the abuse visited on (or feared by) him
    was not on account of his religion.   I then address the arguments
    advanced by the majority for finding this evidence insubstantial.
    1. Ivanov's Own Testimony Directly Supports the Finding.
    This is not a case in which the immigration judge
    stretched to draw inferences to support a conclusion in the face of
    direct evidence to the contrary.   Instead, this is a case in which
    the direct evidence substantially and heavily supported the finding
    -24-
    that Ivanov was not persecuted on account of his religion.        That
    evidence is as follows:
    The skinheads who assaulted Ivanov in 2002 and 2003 were
    in the illegal drug trade, while Ivanov worked at a drug rehab
    center that, he claims, possessed evidence of the skinheads'
    illegal activity and, in any event, cut into their business.      When
    the skinheads kidnapped Ivanov in April of 2002 they did so as he
    left the rehab center.      They never demanded that he change his
    religion, or stop going to his church.        To the contrary, their
    demands focused exclusively on the rehab center.
    On   direct    exam,   Ivanov   volunteered   the   following
    explanation of why the skinheads locked him up: "they wanted me to
    shut down the operation of this rehab and because of that they
    locked me up in the basement."      On cross, Ivanov both reinforced
    his testimony that the skinheads wanted the drug rehab center
    closed because it hurt their business, and unreservedly agreed that
    the center's Pentecostal affiliation was not what garnered the
    skinheads' opposition:
    Q: Sir, you testified that the skinheads that you say
    assaulted you when you were leaving the rehabilitation
    center wanted you to close the clinic or the center and
    you say in your asylum application that these skinheads
    had a very lucrative drug business, drug sale business
    and you also testified today that these skinheads were
    losing money because of the drug rehabilitation center.
    That was because the goal of the center was to try and
    help people get off drugs. Is that correct?
    A: Yes.
    -25-
    Q: So they didn't want the center shut down because it
    was a Pentecostal center.    They wanted it shut down
    because they were losing drug sales, correct?
    A: That is absolutely correct because these people have
    not a single notion about religion, but any church
    whether it be Protestant or Catholic it will also be on
    opposite side against the drugs.
    2.   The Evidence Relied on by the Majority is Either
    Conjectural or, In Any Event, Insufficient to Compel
    Reversal.
    The foregoing evidence should be enough by itself to
    support the decision of the immigration judge, even if the evidence
    to the contrary cited by the majority were as substantial as
    described. In fact, for the following reasons, much of that
    contrary   evidence     is   based   on     conjecture   and   is   otherwise
    reasonably viewed as not especially substantial.
    The majority points to a second attack on Ivanov that
    occurred   almost   a   year   after      the   skinheads   delivered   their
    narrowly-focused demand that the rehab center be shut down.             There
    is no evidence (much less compelling evidence) that the attack was
    on account of Ivanov's religion. The majority nevertheless guesses
    that the attack was at the behest of the police, who had told
    Ivanov "days"21 previously that he would regret not providing
    testimony to support charges that his pastor was hypnotizing his
    parishioners into tithing ten percent of their income to the
    Pentecostal church.
    21
    Ivanov spoke with the police officer in the "end of
    February" and was beaten on March 1st.
    -26-
    This    conjecture   falters      on   two   levels.      First,   if
    conjecture is the game, then it would be equally plausible to
    suggest that the skinheads attacked Ivanov when they did because it
    was almost one year after they delivered their own unmet demand
    that he close the rehab center.         In short, the skinheads had--and
    expressed--their own reasons and there is no need to imagine that
    the police put them up to their crime.            Additionally, even if one
    were to assume that the police officer and the skinheads were in
    cahoots,   there   is   no   reason   that   one   must   also     assume   that
    religious animus played any role in the relationship.                 Certainly
    the gains of an illicit drug trade would provide an equally if not
    more customary and plausible motivation.            The pastor, after all,
    actually ran the rehab center. Ivanov himself plainly implied such
    a drug-centered nexus:
    [I]t's a well-known and established fact that, you know,
    all the skinheads and similar organizations are connected
    to the government structure. For example, you know, our
    attempt to run this rehab for drug addicts, you know, was
    met with such resistence on their part and it's a well-
    known fact also that, you know, they profit from selling
    drugs . . . .
    While Ivanov's statement is not dispositive, it leans towards
    suggesting that money, rather than religious animus, was a common
    interest shared by the skinheads and the police.                  Certainly the
    immigration judge was not required to speculate to the contrary.
    The majority also points to the final attack on Ivanov,
    the 2003 firebombing of the apartment he shared with his parents.
    -27-
    There is nothing about this attack to compel the conclusion that it
    was motivated by religious animus.        It actually coincided with an
    attack on the rehab center that same day.            The rehab center and
    Ivanov (the person the skinheads knew worked there) were therefore
    again the common factor in the skinheads' selection of targets.
    This is not to say that there was no evidence at all in
    Ivanov's favor.         The majority notes that the skinheads once
    referred to the rehab center as "satanic" when they held him
    prisoner. But a single use of a religiously-charged word does not,
    on these facts, compel us to find the skinheads' abuse of Ivanov
    was on account of his religion.      See Sompotan v. Mukasey, 
    533 F.3d 63
    , 70 (1st Cir. 2008).      In Sompotan we rejected the argument that
    the immigration judge was compelled to conclude that "hooligans"
    who robbed the petitioners and their restaurant yelling "Chinese
    bastard,    crazy   Christian,    crazy   Chinese"    were   motivated     by
    religious and racial animus rather than by a desire to rob, noting
    that "[t]he fact that hooligans would stoop to the level of using
    racial slurs is, unfortunately, not surprising."                 
    Id. at 70.
    Indeed,    as   noted   above,   Ivanov   himself    did   not    regard   his
    kidnapping as religiously motivated. How then can a court say that
    the immigration judge was compelled to disagree?
    The majority also correctly notes that there is evidence
    in the record of earlier attacks not limited in their apparent
    focus to rehab center activities and personnel.              These attacks
    -28-
    occurred in 1997 (on the congregation's office), 1999 (on a
    Pentecost service at Ivanov's pastor's house and on Ivanov's
    baptism), and 2000 (on a Pentecostal prayer house). The majority's
    view presumes that the abuse of Ivanov several years later was a
    refocusing of these earlier, religiously-motivated attacks directed
    at the church.     Under this view, the skinheads attacked the rehab
    center because it was both a visible symbol of the church and a
    threat to their drug trade.          This view is certainly plausible.       I
    am at a loss, though, to see how it is so compelling that it
    requires   rejection    of    the     alternative   view   adopted   by    the
    immigration judge.
    There is no evidence compelling us even to conclude that
    the same individuals were behind the earlier and later attacks,
    much less that their motivations remained constant.           Indeed, there
    is no evidence that the "skinheads" involved in these various
    incidents are all part of a single group with a unified and
    disciplined mission and motivation.22          As chronicled above, those
    individuals    behind   the   later    attacks   expressly   limited      their
    demands to ending the drug rehab activity.          And certainly Ivanov's
    experience    in   dealing    with    those   assailants   persecuting     him
    suggested that greed was their monocular focus. As we held before,
    22
    Indeed, Ivanov described the skinheads who kidnapped him
    as "very young kids" and said that "some of them" were "around 16."
    This suggests that they may well not have been personally involved
    in incidents several years before.
    -29-
    where the evidence suggests a plausible motivation not within the
    ambit of the statute's protection, we defer to the choice made by
    the immigration judge to deny asylum on that basis.            See López de
    Hincapie v. Gonzales, 
    494 F.3d 213
    , 219 (1st Cir. 2007).
    The majority also relies on evidence that skinheads in
    Russia often possessed and acted on religious animus and that their
    activities often spiked on the anniversary of Hitler's birth.            But
    if the skinheads who kidnapped and later beat Ivanov shared that
    religious animus, for some unknown reason they were remarkably
    reluctant to voice such views to Ivanov, while nevertheless making
    forcefully clear their strong desire to profit from and protect
    their drug trade.          The factual finding that the abuse here,
    directed at the rehab center and its worker, was motivated only by
    the latter desire is a type of choosing among plausible scenarios
    that   is   within   the   purview   of   the   immigration   judge,   not   a
    reviewing court.     See Amouri v. Holder, 
    572 F.3d 29
    , 34 (1st Cir.
    2009) ("The mere fact that the extortionists were associated with
    an extremist group [did] not compel" us, on its own, to reverse a
    finding that petitioner's persecution was not on account of a
    -30-
    protected characteristic because "fanaticism and a love of money
    are not mutually exclusive.").23
    The immigration judge who heard this case was hardly out
    to   get   Ivanov.    He   expressly   found   Ivanov   credible   in   his
    recounting of events he had witnessed.         The immigration judge was
    also willing to assume that the instances of abuse to which Ivanov
    was subjected over seven years rose to the very high level of
    actual persecution.    Cf. Topalli v. Gonzales, 
    417 F.3d 128
    , 129-32
    (1st Cir. 2005) (no persecution where petitioner was arrested,
    detained, and beaten over the course of three years but never
    required medical attention and was not abused for three years
    before leaving the country); Bocova v. Gonzales, 
    412 F.3d 257
    , 261-
    63 (1st Cir. 2005), superseded in unrelated part by 8 C.F.R.
    § 1240.26(i), as described in Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 
    702 F.3d 504
    , 524 (9th Cir. 2012) (two beatings twenty-five months apart,
    one of which caused petitioner to lose consciousness and require
    hospitalization, insufficient to compel a finding of persecution).
    The majority readily adopts the immigration judge's assumption of
    persecution and his finding that Ivanov was credible in relating
    23
    Nor can the majority's citations to country reports
    containing evidence that religious animus sometimes motivates
    persecution in Russia compel a finding that it did so in this case,
    where the petitioner has described a different motivation. See
    Seng v. Holder, 
    584 F.3d 13
    , 19-20 (1st Cir. 2009) ("Without some
    specific, direct, and credible evidence relative to her own
    situation, there is an insufficient nexus between the petitioner
    and the general unrest depicted in the country conditions
    reports.").
    -31-
    facts, but then proceeds to criticize the immigration judge's
    reasoning    simply   because    he    also   chose    to   believe   Ivanov's
    testimony that the particular people who attacked him "have not a
    single notion about religion," and were instead motivated by
    protecting their drug trade.          The immigration judge witnessed the
    testimony, heard Ivanov's tone, saw his facial expressions, and
    concluded that the testimony I have quoted above was due great
    weight.
    Nor can the State Department's Country and Religious
    Freedom Reports perform the work assigned to them by the majority.
    One would think from reading the majority's description of the
    reports that Pentecostals could live nowhere in Russia without
    facing a realistic risk of actual persecution.                   The majority
    presumably proffers such a description because the absence of such
    a country-wide hazard could by itself defeat Ivanov's asylum
    request.     Tendean v. Gonzales, 
    503 F.3d 8
    , 11 (1st Cir. 2007)
    (asylum     application   will   be     denied   "if   it   is   shown   by   a
    preponderance of the evidence that '[t]he applicant could avoid
    future persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant's
    country . . . and under all the circumstances, it would be
    reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.'" (quoting 8 C.F.R.
    § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B)) (alteration in original)).
    The 2006 Country Report, however, reports no acts of
    actual persecution of Pentecostals throughout all of Russia in the
    -32-
    previous year.   Even reports of lesser degrees of harassment of
    Pentecostals decreased during 2006, following the appointment of
    Pentecostal Bishop Sergey Ryakhovskiy to Russia's Public Chamber.24
    United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human
    Rights, and Labor, Country Report on Human Rights Practices in
    Russia at 20 (Mar. 2007), available at http://www.state.gov/j/
    drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78835.htm [hereinafter 2006 Country Report].
    These reports belie the notion that Ivanov, merely because he is
    Pentecostal, cannot live in Russia without a risk of actual
    persecution.
    B.   There Is Sufficient Evidence to Support the Finding of Fact
    That There Was an Insufficient Nexus between the Russian
    Government and the Abuse of Ivanov.
    The law also requires that Ivanov prove that the persons
    who persecuted him were "aligned with the government" or that the
    government was "unwilling or unable to control [the violence.]"
    Burbiene v. Holder, 
    568 F.3d 251
    , 255 (1st Cir. 2009).          The
    majority's conclusion that Ivanov made such a showing is based
    partly on conjecture, appears to be the product of stereotypical
    thinking about Russian law enforcement bereft of any sense of
    context, and certainly fails to provide a compelling case for
    24
    The Public Chamber was established to represent civil
    society and to foster tolerance.     It was directed by President
    Putin. United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy,
    Human Rights, and Labor, International Religious Freedom Report for
    Russia at 13 (Sept. 2006), available at http://www.state.gov/
    j/drl/rls/irf/2006/71403.htm [hereinafter 2006 Religious Freedom
    Report].
    -33-
    rejecting the contrary conclusion of the immigration judge, who
    found Ivanov's claims in this regard to rest on "speculation."
    First, the majority implies that the kidnapping of Ivanov
    was aided by the police merely because the kidnapping occurred some
    uncertain number of days after the police told him that he would be
    sorry for refusing to accede to a police officer's demand that he
    provide incriminating testimony in an investigation of his pastor.
    I addressed this conjecture in Part A2 of this opinion.
    Second, the majority cites excerpts from State Department
    reports recounting other incidents in Russia (a country of roughly
    143 million people, 2006 Country Report at 1) where the authorities
    were, in the majority's words, "lackluster" in their responses to
    reports of religious attacks and that arrests were "extremely
    infrequent and convictions rare."           2006 Country Report at 20.      The
    majority's    use   of   such    excerpts    is   selective,   omitting,   for
    example, the fact that the 2006 and 2007 Religious Freedom Reports
    describe in detail only a single incident, in a nation containing
    approximately 1,500 Pentecostal groups, 2006 Religious Freedom
    Report at 1, of violence against individual Pentecostals which
    could plausibly rise to the serious level of abuse sufficient to
    support an asylum claim.         That incident was an attack by "youths"
    in early 2005 on Pentecostals holding a protest in Moscow.                 2006
    Country Report at 20.           There is no indication in the record of
    whether this incident was investigated expeditiously.             
    Id. There -34-
    are no reports of individual Evangelicals, or any Christians,
    suffering abuse comparable to that which Ivanov described being
    directed at him personally, let alone evidence that government
    officials acquiesced to such abuse.
    The same report also states that in February of 1997
    Russian authorities obtained the convictions of five skinheads for
    an anti-Semitic murder, and that "[f]ederal and regional officials
    participated actively in, and in many cases      strongly supported, a
    range   of    government   and   NGO-organized   programs    to   promote
    tolerance."    United States Department of State, Bureau Democracy,
    Human Rights, and Labor, International Religious Freedom Report for
    Russia at 9 (Sept. 2007), available at http://www.state.gov/j/
    drl/rls/irf/2007/90196.htm.      The same report further relates that
    in late 2006 a Russian court ruled in favor of the Pentecostal
    Church's ability to register its property, and the group reported
    no further harassment.     
    Id. Third, the
    majority's heavy reliance on the fact that
    Ivanov was unaware of any investigations or arrests arising out of
    the crimes he described evidences a lack of perspective and
    context.     Certainly the failure of the police to interview Ivanov
    after he was released by his captors could support a finding that
    their investigation after the fact was lackluster.          On the other
    hand, the actual record is that the police told Ivanov's parents
    that they would look for him when his parents reported him missing.
    -35-
    The fact that they did not find him within two days in a city of
    over one million people, Library of Congress, Russia: A Country
    Study (1998), available at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/rutoc.html,
    hardly proves anything.    And the unstated assumption that Ivanov
    would have been aware of investigations concerning the other events
    he described is not compelling.    All in all, this is not a record
    that compels a finding that the police were aligned with the people
    who attacked Ivanov or unwilling or unable to do their jobs.
    To put all of the foregoing in perspective and provide
    the context missing from the majority's discussion, one need only
    look at this country.   According to the October 1998 Report of the
    National Church Arson Task Force, in less than four years there
    were 670 arsons, bombings or attempted bombings of houses of
    worship in the United States.     National Church Arson Task Force,
    Second Year Report for the President (Oct. 1998), available at
    http://www.justice.gov/crt/church_arson/arson98.php.    Even in the
    wake of   a nationally coordinated investigative effort, arrests
    were made in connection with only 230 of the 670 incidents (a
    higher rate than typical for similar crimes, according to the Task
    Force).   
    Id. I do
    not presume from these facts that churchgoers in the
    United States face persecution with government acquiescence.     To
    the contrary, if Ivanov cited these facts to suggest that he could
    not safely live in the United States without facing persecution, I
    -36-
    hope that we would reject such a suggestion.            And when we have a
    record reporting no higher rates of bombing or unsolved bombings in
    Russia, and an unsolved incident of abuse of a drug rehab worker by
    drug dealers in Chelyabinsk (a city of more than 1 million people),
    I do not see why an immigration judge cannot find as a matter of
    fact that Ivanov does not face the requisite risk of government
    related persecution should he return to Russia.
    Of course, I am now arguing the weight of the facts,
    which I need not do.      All I need show is that the facts are not so
    hefty and one-sided as to compel the conclusion that they must be
    weighed as the majority weighs them.
    C.    Conclusion
    At base, the majority appears to act on a conviction that
    if   many   so-called   skinheads   possess    a    strong   animus   against
    Pentecostals as manifest in prior acts of harassment and abuse, and
    Pentecostals operate a rehab center for religious reasons using
    religious methods, then any skinheads' later abuse of operators of
    that center must necessarily be, at least in part, on account of
    the skinheads' religious animus.           I fear that such a conviction
    under-appreciates       the   complexities    of    human    behavior,    and
    substitutes stereotypical thinking for allegiance to the actual
    facts as described by Ivanov himself.              Similarly, the majority
    fills holes in Ivanov's case with conjecture about what the police
    did and did not do, all resting in part on what seems to be an
    -37-
    unrealistic assumption about the aims and efficiency of police work
    in Russia.   More importantly, even accepting that conviction as
    plausible, on this record it is not so compelling as to overbear
    the deference due to the amply supported findings of fact by an
    immigration judge who decided that Ivanov could practice his faith
    in Russia without persecution on account of that faith.      I must
    therefore conclude that, notwithstanding our shared sympathy for
    Ivanov's desire to remain in this country, the record contains
    substantial enough evidence to require that we defer to the
    findings of the immigration judge.
    -38-