Stefanova v. Holder ( 2010 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MARIA STEFANOVA, No. 06-70547
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-398-271
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 12, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, FISHER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Stefanova petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA) denial of her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252 and we deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
First, Stefanova disputes the BIA’s determinations that she failed to establish
that she had been subject to past persecution and that she failed to establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution. These are factual findings, see Prasad v. INS,
47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995), and we must uphold them unless “the evidence
compels a different result,” Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 891 (9th
Cir. 2002).
Stefanova’s difficulties at work, her encounters with the Bulgarian police
and the other experiences she credibly described do not compel a finding that she
suffered past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.
2003) (“Persecution . . . is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
treatment our society regards as offensive.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf.
id. at 1014-18 (holding that the record did not compel a finding of past persecution
when petitioner credibly testified she had been harassed and fired at work,
“pushed,” and threatened with death).
Nor does the record compel a finding that Stefanova’s subjectively genuine
fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable. Although members of
minority Christian denominations continue to face hardships in post-Communist
Bulgaria, the record does not compel a finding that those hardships rise to the level
of persecution on account of religion, and it therefore does not compel a finding
2
that Stefanova’s subjective fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable. See
Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, Stefanova claims that the Immigration Judge (IJ) failed to provide
her a “full and fair hearing of her claims and a reasonable opportunity to present
evidence on her behalf.” See Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir.
2009) (quoting Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000)). The record
does not support that claim. The agency is presumed to have reviewed the
evidence before it, see Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,1095-96 (9th Cir.
2000), and the BIA and IJ’s decisions are consistent with that presumption. Nor
does the record suggest that the IJ unduly rushed Stefanova or prevented her from
presenting witnesses or evidence.
PETITION DENIED.
3