Veaceslav Anatolii Septelici v. US Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14257
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A087-665-541
VEACESLAV ANATOLII SEPTELICI,
Petitioner,
versus
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 18, 2013)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14257 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2
Petitioner Veaceslav Septelici seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA’s) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his
application for asylum. We dismiss Septelici’s petition in part and deny it in part.
I.
Septelici, a native and citizen of Moldova, entered the United States as a
nonimmigrant exchange visitor with authorization to remain until September 12,
2009. On November 2, 2009, he filed an application for asylum.1 But Septelici
failed to appear at his asylum interview, so the Department of Homeland Security
initiated removal proceedings, charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(B) as an alien who remained in the country longer than permitted.
Along with his application, Septelici submitted the United States
Department of State’s 2009 Country Report for Moldova, which provided
background information on ethnic tensions between Romanian-speaking and
Russian-speaking Moldovans. The report also discussed the country’s political
climate, including unrest that peaked after an April 2009 election.
At a hearing before an IJ, Septelici testified that he was a student in Moldova
in April 2009 when communists were re-elected to political office through what
many believed to be a fraudulent election. Two days after the election, Septelici
1 Septelici also initially filed applications for withholding of removal and relief under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture. Because he does not meaningfully challenge the denial of
these forms of relief, he has abandoned these claims. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d
1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
Case: 12-14257 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

3
gathered with thousands of other students to protest. He and his peers spoke and
held banners bearing slogans such as “down with the communists.”
The following evening, Septelici was returning home from class when four
masked individuals attacked him. He testified that his attackers beat him with their
fists and hard objects because he “want[ed] to be united with Europe” and “to have
the Romanian language spoken” in Moldova. They also said “that they were going
to teach all of us students how to stay in class instead of go out and protest.”
During the attack, Septelici briefly lost consciousness. Afterwards, at a hospital, a
doctor noted that Septelici had signs of a beating on his body and face. He spent
the next two weeks afraid to leave home, and during that time media reports
indicated that other students were attacked, some by masked police. Medical
records show that Septelici’s injuries had completely healed within a month.
Based on these events, Septelici testified that he was afraid to return to Moldova.
The IJ found Septelici’s testimony credible but denied his asylum
application, concluding that the evidence did not establish Septelici had suffered
persecution. Specifically, the IJ concluded that the isolated attack, which occurred
during a period of extreme civil unrest, did not amount to the harm required to
constitute persecution. And the IJ found that there was no connection between the
attack and Septelici’s political opinion. The IJ did not discuss whether Septelici
had a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Case: 12-14257 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4
Septelici appealed to the BIA, and did not address whether he feared future
persecution. The BIA expressly adopted and affirmed the IJ’s past-persecution
decision but also, sua sponte, determined that Septelici lacked a well-founded fear
of future persecution. This is Septelici’s appeal.
II.
“We review only the [BIA]’s decision, except to the extent that it expressly
adopts the IJ’s opinion.” Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).
Here, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s opinion, so we review the IJ’s decision as
well. We review the IJ’s and the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and factual
determinations under the highly deferential substantial-evidence test, affirming the
decision “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on
the record considered as a whole.” Id. at 1283-84. We will only reverse a finding
of fact where the record compels it, not if it merely supports a contrary conclusion.
Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009).
An asylum applicant must meet the Immigration and Nationality Act’s
definition of “refugee,” which includes:
any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . .
and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling
to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that 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.
Case: 12-14257 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

5
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Thus, to meet this definition, the applicant must
demonstrate (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a
well-founded fear that the statutorily listed factor will cause future persecution.”
Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Because Septelici did not argue to the BIA that he had a well-
founded fear of future persecution, even though the BIA sua sponte addressed the
topic, we are precluded from reviewing that issue. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006). We therefore dismiss the
portion of Septelici’s petition pertaining to future persecution and address only
whether the IJ and BIA erred in concluding that Septelici did not demonstrate past
persecution on account of his political opinion.
III.
The record does not compel reversal of the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusions that
Septelici failed to demonstrate past persecution. Persecution is “an extreme
concept, requiring more than a few isolated instances of verbal harassment or
intimidation.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005).
Further, verbal threats “in conjunction with [a] minor beating” do not compel the
conclusion that a petitioner suffered persecution. Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514
F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008). In Djonda, we held that substantial evidence
supported the BIA’s conclusion that a petitioner’s beating was minor when the
Case: 12-14257 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6
BIA relied on medical documents indicating that, after being beaten, kicked, and
detained for 36 hours by police, the petitioner suffered only “scratches and
bruises.” Id. In this case, Septelici’s medical records – on which the IJ and BIA
relied – indicated that he suffered only bruising and contusions from the beating.
Just as in Djonda, therefore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s
conclusions that Septelici’s beating was minor and, even when combined with the
attackers’ verbal threats, did not constitute persecution. See id. Accordingly, we
deny his petition based on past persecution.2
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
2 Because we conclude that Septelici’s attack did not amount to persecution, we need not address
whether substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusions that Septelici failed to
establish a nexus between the attack and his political opinion.
Case: 12-14257 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --