Elena N. Krivonos; Vladimir I. Krivonos; Daria B. Krivonos v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General

On appeal, petitioners do not challenge the immigration judge’s denial of their request for voluntary withholding
1
of removal under § 241(b)(3) of the INA and for withholding under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)).
The immigration judge focused exclusively upon the claims advanced by Mrs. Krivonos because she alone
2
contends that she suffered persecution based upon political activity. Her husband and daughter’s applications are
derivative of her claims.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0151n.06
Filed: February 26, 2007
No. 06-3206
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ELENA N. KRIVONOS; VLADIMIR I. KRIVONOS;
DARIA B. KRIVONOS,
Petitioners,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
APPEALS
MEMORANDUM
OPINION
Before: NORRIS, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Elena Krivonos, her husband Vladimir, and daughter Daria, who are
citizens of Russia, appeal the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals of their petition for asylum
filed pursuant to § 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158. The1
immigration judge concluded that, even if he credited Mrs. Krivonos’ testimony, she had failed to2
establish either that she suffered past persecution based upon her political activities or had a well-

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-3206
Krivonos v. Gonzales
- 2 -
founded fear of future persecution (or torture) upon repatriation to Russia. The BIA affirmed the
denial of relief.
As with many individuals who come before us seeking permanent residency in the United
States, we are sympathetic to the situation of the Krivonos family and their desire to make a new life
in this country. Accordingly, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the administrative record
below with great care. We conclude that petitioners have not made the requisite showing to justify
relief on any of the theories that they have advanced. Because the reasons for our decision were
adequately articulated by the immigration judge in his oral decision dated August 25, 2004, and by
the BIA in its January 18, 2006 order adopting and affirming that decision, a detailed opinion by this
court would serve no useful purpose.
The decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --