Vadim Klefos v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VADIM KLEFOS,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71751
Agency No. A071-409-312
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Vadim Klefos, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-71751
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the
petition for review.
Klefos argues he established past persecution and a well-founded fear of
future persecution in Moldova on account of his religion as a Jehovah’s Witness.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Klefos did not
establish that the incidents of past harm he described rose to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003)
(evidence of employment and educational discrimination, beating of fellow
Christians, and death threats did not compel a finding of past persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Klefos failed to
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his religion. See
id. at 1018 (petitioner’s fear of future persecution not objectively reasonable); see
also Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2005) (“forced
conscription or punishment for evasion of military duty generally does not
constitute persecution on account of a protected ground”). Thus, we deny the
petition as to Klefos’ asylum claim.
Because Klefos has not established eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the
more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-71751
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Klefos failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Moldova. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. The record does not support Klefos’
contention that agency failed to address his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --