United States v. 2020-10-22 | 17-72509 | ARTEM VOVK V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTEM ANATOLYEVICH VOVK,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-72509
19-71118

Agency No. A094-547-335

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2020
**

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

In Appeal No. 17-72509, Petitioner Artem Anatolyevich Vovk (“Vovk”)
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 2017 order
denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). In Appeal No. 19-71118, Vovk petitions for review of the BIA’s

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

OCT 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
order denying his motion for reconsideration, which sought to terminate his
immigration proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v.
Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). We deny both petitions.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Vovk’s CAT claim. The
immigration judge sufficiently considered the documentary evidence and witness
testimony regarding country conditions in Ukraine. Although Vovk may have
suffered anti-Semitic discrimination in the past, he suffered no harm rising to the
level of “torture” as defined under CAT. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see Ahmed v.
Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1201 (9th Cir. 2007). Nor did the documentary evidence
demonstrate any significant recent occurrence of anti-Semitic violence in the
country, especially since President Poroshenko took power in 2014. Vovk did not
bear his burden of showing it was more probable than not he would face torture by
or with the acquiescence of an official or someone acting in an official capacity if
returned to the Ukraine. See Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 662–63 (9th Cir.
2019).
The BIA also did not err in denying Vovk’s motion to reconsider and
terminate under Pereira. Vovk argued that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction
over his proceedings because his initial Notice to Appear did not designate the date
and time of his hearing. Vovk’s argument has since been foreclosed by this court’s

3
precedent in Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019), and Aguilar
Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 893–95 (9th Cir. 2020).
1

PETITIONS DENIED.

1
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition in Lieu of Answering Brief [Dkt.
Entry #35] is denied as moot.