Ekaterina Shuldyakova v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable David M. Lawson, United States District Judge for the***
Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EKATERINA SHULDYAKOVA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73223
Agency No. A079-156-675
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2009**
Pasadena, California
Before: HALL and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and LAWSON, District Judge.***
Ekaterina Shuldyakova, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of
a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision upholding an Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
FILED
DEC 03 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Shuldyakova claims
that she fears persecution if returned to Russia because of her association with her
family and her father’s high-profile political activity. The IJ denied relief concluding
that Shuldyakova failed to meet her burden of proving past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution. The BIA affirmed without opinion. After we
remanded the matter on the government’s uncontested motion, the BIA rejected
Shuldyakova’s claim in a written opinion. Shuldyakova filed a timely petition for
review.
We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, upholding
them unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary result. Mihalev v. Ashcroft,
388 F.3d 722, 724 (9th Cir. 2004). We find that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
and the BIA’s denial of the asylum application.
First, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that the
mistreatment Shuldyakova described did not rise to the level of persecution. The sole
physical encounter involving the petitioner personally was the nighttime attack in the
park, which the petitioner characterizes as a foiled rape attempt. The assailant remains
unknown, as does the connection to any of the petitioner’s or her father’s political
activity. The assailant’s oblique reference to the petitioner’s father could support an
inference that the attack was connected to the father’s political activity, but the

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
evidence certainly does not compel such an inference. Although the event
understandably upset the petitioner, she was not physically harmed, and the attack was
not part of a pattern of abuse that amounted to persecution.
The petitioner never reported the incident to the police, arguing here that she
could have no confidence in official assistance due to her father’s activity. However,
she alleges no facts supporting her conclusion that an attempt to obtain official help
would have been futile or dangerous. She does aver that some of the personnel in the
entities sued by her father were high-ranking officials within the government. But
their connection to the police is far from clear, and the petitioner’s belief of official
inaction is speculative. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.
2005) (failure to report non-governmental persecution due to subjective belief that
police would do nothing did not establish that government was unwilling or unable
to control persecutors, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a)).
There is no evidence that the university dean’s refusal to cooperate in changing
the petitioner’s examination schedule was motivated by the petitioner’s family ties or
political activities. The petitioner apparently believes the dean singled her out for
unfair treatment, but we are not convinced that the conduct even amounted to
harassment, and the petitioner has not provided any evidence of how her comparators
were treated. No past persecution has been shown.

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
Second, Shuldyakova has not established a well-founded fear of future
persecution within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i). She points to the
incidents involving her father, her mother and her father’s associates. However, there
is no evidence that the conduct directed toward the petitioner’s father – other than the
arrests – was officially sponsored. The arrests themselves do not amount to “the
infliction of suffering.” There is no evidence that the incidents involving
Shuldyakova’s mother or her father’s two colleagues were related to each other or to
her father’s activities, or that any of them were carried out at the direction of
individuals connected to or within the government. Even when considered in the
aggregate, the evidence presented by the petitioner fails to establish the severe and
persistent pattern of persecution necessary to entitle an applicant to asylum relief. See
Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (demanding repeated,
lengthy, and severe harassment in order to be able to compel the conclusion that the
IJ and the BIA erred in rejecting the claim of asylum). Finally, the activities of the
petitioner and her family appear to be focused on the locality of the Chelyabinsk
District. The petitioner has not explained why she could not relocate to another part
of her own country as a way of avoiding the consequences of her family ties and her
father’s political activity. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B).

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
Because the IJ’s and BIA’s decision that the petitioner has not shown past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution is supported by substantial
evidence, the petitioner cannot show that she is a refugee and therefore eligible for
asylum or the more stringent requirements of withholding of removal. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). The petitioner does not seriously
contend that she will be tortured upon her return to Russia, and therefore she is not
eligible for relief under the CAT. Therefore, her petition is DENIED.

-- 5 of 5 --