Elena Ostro v. ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM…

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-1667
ELENA OSTRO,
Petitioner
v.
ALBERTO GONZALES,
Attorney General of the United States
____________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(Board No. A74-191-496)
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 4, 2005
Before: McKEE, VAN ANTWERPEN, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 17, 2005)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Russia who entered the United States in
1994 as a non-immigrant visitor for business. She requested asylum, withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. After a hearing, an IJ granted

-- 1 of 3 --

2
asylum and withholding of removal, but did not rule on whether relief was due under the
Convention.
On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals sustained the government’s
appeal and held that the IJ had erred in granting relief to petitioner.
Because this opinion is not precedential and the parties are well aware of
the facts, we will only summarize them briefly.
Petitioner became involved in an altercation with her paramour and fatally
stabbed him. Initial prosecution of the homicide resulted in favorable rulings for
petitioner, but a charge akin to voluntary manslaughter remains pending. The Russian
authorities have issued a warrant for the petitioner’s arrest.
Petitioner contends that the father of her deceased’s paramour has been
pressuring the Russian authorities to keep the criminal process alive. In addition, she
alleges that he has threatened her and her daughter and that he physically attacked her in
public. She also alleges that the police had coerced a witness to recant his previous,
favorable testimony.
The BIA concluded that the criminal proceeding was a continuing one and
had not been dismissed and later reinstated as the IJ had believed. Moreover, the father’s
alleged desire for revenge is not a persecution on account of a protected ground. It
appears that petitioner has been subjected to a legitimate criminal investigation and
prosecution. In addition, the BIA pointed out that, in coming to the United States, the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
petitioner had violated her original restraining measures and had become a fugitive from
justice.
Our review of the record persuades us that the BIA’s decision to deny
asylum was supported by substantial evidence. In addition, we do not find record support
for a finding that petitioner is entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Finding ourselves in agreement with the BIA, accordingly, we will deny the
petition for review.

-- 3 of 3 --