Gagi Otiashvili v. BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES On

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 04-1988
____________________
GAGI OTIASHVILI,
Petitioner
v.
BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
______________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board No. A79-596-070)
______________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 8, 2005
Before: BARRY, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 25, 2005)
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Gagi Otiashvili, a citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of a final order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming without opinion the decision of an
immigration judge (IJ) ordering him removed from the United States and denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under § 242(a)(1) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) (2000), which provides the exclusive
procedure for judicial review of all final removal orders. Our standard of review is highly
deferential: “the BIA’s finding must be upheld unless the evidence not only supports a
contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 483-84 (3d Cir.
2001). For the reasons that follow, we will the deny the petition.
Because the parties are fully familiar with the background facts and procedural
history we need not set them forth, and limit our discussion largely to our ratio decidendi.
The factual record portrays a dramatic series of events, emanating from assignment of
Otiashvili, a physician, to investigate a case of possible drug use by two military cadets,
which revealed: (1) that the cadets had purchased opium from a gas station owned by a
former “major of police” named Shamil Kudjaidze; and (2) that the local police were
involved in the drug trade. Otiashvili filed a confidential report with his superiors which
led to a number of arrests of local police officers, including Tarasi Mgaloblishvili, the
deputy chief of the Akhmeta police, who, Otiashvili claims, was Shamil Kudjaidze’s
partner in the drug trade. There succeeded a number of retaliatory events, which

-- 2 of 4 --

3
escalated into minor local warfare in the Pankisi Gorge area of Georgia. As a result of
threats against his life, Otiashvili sent his family to the Kharogouliski district, far from his
village in the Pankisi Gorge, where he believed they were safe.
We do not gainsay that Otiashvili may have a legitimate fear of retaliation from the
drug lord, Margoshvila. However, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that
Margoshvila’s threats were the result of a personal feud between the two men and did not
implicate the government of Georgia, and additionally that they had nothing to do with
Otiashvili’s political opinion or alleged membership in a particular social group. At all
events, the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. More specifically, Otiashvili
offered no credible evidence that his actions against Margoshvila were predicated on his
anti-corruption political convictions, or that Margoshvila imputed any political opinion or
social group status to Otiashvili. Thus, although the threats may have been serious, they
do not give rise to a legally cognizable ground for asylum because they were not made on
account of any of the statutorily protected grounds.
Although Otiashvili complains that the Georgian government’s withdrawal of
troops from the Pankisi Gorge, together with its demand that he cease his military
activities in that region made him an easy target for his enemies, that is not enough to
connect the threats into action by the government of Georgia. The ability of the family to
safely relocate to another area of Georgia despite the fact that Margoshvila had also
threatened them indicates that Otiashvili too could relocate to another area of Georgia

-- 3 of 4 --

4
outside the Pankisi Gorge, where he would be safe from Margoshvila’s threats.
For the foregoing reasons, Otiashvili is not eligible for asylum. Concomitantly, he
is not eligible for withholding of removal, see Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 469-70
(3d Cir. 2003). Finally, Otiashvili failed to establish his eligibility for protection under
the Torture Convention, since he adduced no evidence of past torture or any indication
that the Georgian government would torture him or tolerate his being tortured if he
returned to Georgia. The petition for review will be denied.

-- 4 of 4 --