Evgeny Aksenov v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2116
EVGENY AKSENOV,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-142-242)
Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 20, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Evgeny Aksenov, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Eric
Warren Marsteller, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Evgeny Aksenov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s oral decision
denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and
withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the
petition for review.
The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum
on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). It defines a refugee
as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native country
“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)(A)
(2000). We agree with the Board that Aksenov failed to show
entitlement to asylum or withholding from removal. He failed to
show the past events were as a result of his membership in a
particular social group. We also agree with the Board that Aksenov
failed to show that more likely than not he will face torture if he
returns to Russia, as it is defined by the regulation. See 8
C.F.R. 1208.18(a)(1) (2005).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --