Anastasiya Krushevskaya v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1366
ANASTASIYA KRUSHEVSKAYA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 3, 2015 Decided: November 4, 2015
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander J. Segal, THE LAW OFFICES OF GRINBERG & SEGAL,
P.L.L.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn
Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Melissa K. Lott, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Anastasiya Krushevskaya, a native and citizen of Belarus,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript
of Krushevskaya’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence.
We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence
supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
We have also considered the various bases for
Krushevskaya’s claim that the immigration judge’s conduct at the
merits hearing violated her due process rights and find no error
in the Board’s conclusion that Krushevskaya failed to show that
the immigration judge was biased or that she did not receive a
full or fair hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) (2012) (giving
immigration judges authority to “interrogate, examine, and
cross-examine the alien and any witnesses”); Rusu v. INS, 296
F.3d 316, 321-22 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing that alien must be
“accorded an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in

-- 2 of 3 --

3
a meaningful manner, i.e., . . . [to] receive a full and fair
hearing on [her] claims”).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. In re: Krushevskaya (B.I.A. Mar.
18, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --