Rusishvili v. Mukasey , 295 F. App'x 805 ( 2008 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0607n.06
Filed: October 10, 2008
No. 07-3959
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
AVTANDIL RUSISHVILI,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. On Petition for Review from the
Board of Immigration Appeals
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,
Respondent-Appellee.
/
BEFORE: BOGGS, Chief Judge; and RYAN and COLE, Circuit Judges.
RYAN, Circuit Judge. The petitioner, Avtandil Rusishvili, appeals a decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his
claim for asylum and withholding of removal. Because we find that substantial evidence
supports the IJ’s decision, we DENY Rusishvili’s petition for review.
I.
The petitioner is a native and citizen of Georgia who entered the United States as
a non-immigrant visitor for pleasure in January 1999, with permission to stay until July 10,
1999. When Rusishvili stayed beyond the prescribed period, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service commenced deportation proceedings against him.
Rusishvili claims that he suffered past persecution in Georgia based on his political
views and his Jewish religion and ethnicity, and he argues that he would suffer future
(No. 07-3959) -2-
persecution if forced to return. In support of his claim, he cites that he was a political
cartoonist for different newspapers and drew many cartoons that were critical of members
of the government. He also cites a single incident of vandalism to the apartment complex
where he lived, and an incident where he found that his car had been riddled with bullets.
He claims that in response to his cartoons, the newspapers received threatening phone
calls where his Jewish ethnicity was mentioned. In addition, he claims that the vandalism
and the shooting incident were both accompanied by ethnic slurs. However, he does not
claim to have suffered any direct attack against him personally.
The IJ concluded that Rusishvili failed to establish that he suffered past persecution
on account of his political opinion, religion, or ethnicity and that the government proved by
a preponderance of the evidence that conditions in Georgia have changed to overcome
any presumption of a fear of future persecution. The IJ issued an oral opinion denying
Rusishvili’s application for asylum, denying his application for withholding of removal under
the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture, and also denying
his request for voluntary departure. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without issuing an
opinion and Rusishvili then filed a timely petition for review. Rusishvili does not challenge
the IJ’s decision to deny CAT relief nor does he challenge the denial of his request for
voluntary departure.
II.
When the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning with respect to a claim for asylum or
withholding of removal, we review the IJ’s decision directly. Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d
396, 401 (6th Cir. 2005). And in doing so, we will reverse the IJ’s decision only when “the
(No. 07-3959) -3-
evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992).
In order to receive asylum, the applicant must establish that he has a well-founded
fear of future persecution if returned to his country of origin. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A);
Akhtar v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2005). To qualify for withholding of
removal, the applicant must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be
persecuted if forced to return to the place from which he emigrated. 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3)(A); INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 413 (1984).
III.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision to deny Rusishvili’s applications for
asylum and for withholding of removal because Rusishvili has not demonstrated a
well-founded fear of future persecution. The instances of persecution cited by the
petitioner appear to be merely isolated criminal activity rather than “persecution” as meant
by the Immigration and Nationality Act. See Lumaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 574, 577-78 (6th
Cir. 2006). Rusishvili was never physically attacked and it is not even clear that any of
these incidents were directed at him on account of his political opinion, religion, or ethnicity.
Likewise, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that conditions in
Georgia have changed so as to rebut any presumption of future persecution. The State
Department Human Rights reports relied upon by the IJ indicate that journalists are
generally free from harassment on account of political opinion and that those who practice
Judaism are not at particular risk of attacks in Georgia. Relying upon these reports is an
acceptable practice for determining that conditions have sufficiently changed, and the IJ
(No. 07-3959) -4-
reasonably relied upon these reports to conclude that conditions have in fact changed by
a preponderance of the evidence standard.
IV.
Therefore, we DENY Rusishvili’s petition for review.