Serguei Mitine v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2013 )

Case: 12-13638 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 12-13638
Non-Argument Calendar
__________________________
Agency No. A071-497-639
SERGUEI MITINE,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
__________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
__________________________
(May 30, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Serguei Mitine seeks review of the final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention
Case: 12-13638 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Against Torture. Mitine argues that the Board erred in affirming the immigration
judge’s decision without issuing its own separate opinion because he presented
new legal issues to the Board that the Board failed to address.
One member of the Board can issue an affirmance of the immigration
judge’s decision without an opinion if:
[T]he Board member determines that the result reached in the decision
under review was correct; that any errors in the decision under review
were harmless or nonmaterial; and that . . . [t]he issues on appeal are
squarely controlled by existing Board or federal court precedent and
do not involve the application of precedent to a novel factual
situation; or . . . [t]he factual and legal issues raised on appeal are not
so substantial that the case warrants the issuance of a written opinion
in the case.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i). The Board did not err in affirming the immigration
judge’s decision without issuing an opinion. Mitine fails to demonstrate that the
Board violated its regulation in issuing this summary affirmance.
When the Board issues a summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s
opinion, we review the immigration judge’s opinion. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005). Mitine contends that the immigration
judge’s decision denying relief on his claim for asylum and withholding of
removal is “not clear.” (Pet’r’s Br. at 18.) But, we conclude that the immigration
judge did not err in denying relief because Mitine has not demonstrated eligibility
2
Case: 12-13638 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 Page: 3 of 3
for asylum or withholding of removal. Nor has he demonstrated eligibility for
relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Finally, we reject Mitine’s argument that the immigration judge erroneously
designated Russia as Mitine’s country of removal. An alien may be removed to
“[t]he country in which the alien’s birthplace is located,” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(2)(E)(vi), regardless of whether the country accepts him, Jama v.
Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 342, 125 S. Ct. 694, 700
(2005). Mitine testified that he was born in what is present-day Russia. (Admin.
R. at 100–02.)
PETITION DENIED.
3