Zhuravlev v. Blanche

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________

No. 25-60410
____________

Evgenii Zhuravlev,

Petitioner,

versus

Todd Wallace Blanche, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.
______________________________

Petition for Review from an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A241 328 243
______________________________

Before Stewart, Graves, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
*

Petitioner Evgenii Zhuravlev is a gay Russian citizen who applied for
asylum and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). The immigration judge (the “IJ”) denied relief. The IJ
concluded that Zhuravlev failed to establish past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution, and failed to establish he was more
likely than not to be tortured if he returned to Russia. The Board of
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 18, 2026

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 25-60410 Document: 91-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2026

No. 25-60410
2
Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s decision, and Zhuravlev
filed a petition for review. For the following reasons, Zhuravlev’s petition for
review is DENIED.
I.
In June 2024, Zhuravlev applied for admission to the United States
without possessing a valid entry document. After the Department of
Homeland Security charged Zhuravlev with not possessing a valid entry
document under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), Zhuravlev conceded
removability. However, he applied for asylum and withholding of removal
under the CAT. In his application, Zhuravlev claimed that he suffered past
harm, that he would suffer future harm, and that he would be tortured by
state actors for being a gay man in Russia.
In support of his application, Zhuravlev shared personal experiences
of his time living in Russia. In high school and college, he and his friends were
bullied for being gay. In 2012, his employer slapped him and demanded that
he resign when he found out that Zhuravlev was using work computers to
access gay dating websites. When Zhuravlev attempted to file a police report,
his employer threatened to withhold his pay and a reference letter for future
employers. In 2019, Zhuravlev and his friends were assaulted by men outside
of a gay club. Zhuravlev also received threatening text messages and phone
calls from a co-worker’s husband after the co-worker disclosed that
Zhuravlev was gay.
In 2019, Zhuravlev met his current husband, Egor Safronov, and
began cohabitating with him. The two traveled across Europe between 2019
Case: 25-60410 Document: 91-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2026

No. 25-60410
3
and 2022, visiting Estonia, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and France.
1

And when Safronov received a draft notice for the Russian military, they left
the country for about one month until the notice expired. Zhuravlev
conceded that he did not face difficulty traveling to and from Russia during
his travels across Europe.
In 2022, Russia passed an anti-LGBTQ propaganda law which
criminalized queer expression. Although Zhuravlev stated that a gay person
could face a ten-year prison sentence, he could not cite specific record
evidence to support that assertion. Nevertheless, Zhuravlev stated that,
because of this law, he would undergo mandatory conversion therapy and
face other persecution. While he did not point to evidence showing that he
would be subject to conversion therapy or other persecution in Russia, he
recounted the story of another young individual who had been subjected to
mandatory conversion therapy, stated that gay nightclubs were being raided,
and asserted that gay people were facing criminal prosecution.
In 2023, Zhuravlev and Safronov left Russia once more, citing the war
in Ukraine as the reason. Zhuravlev admitted that they were not confronted
by Russian officials for being gay when traveling. He also stated that they
were not subject to systemic mistreatment. The two waited months after
Safronov received his draft notice and the propaganda law was passed to
leave Russia, because they did not want to leave their family. Zhuravlev
further explained that Safronov has HIV, and it would be hard to access his
medication in Russia. The pair subsequently entered the United States
together in June 2024, and Zhuravlev applied for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the CAT.
_____________________
1
Prior to meeting his husband, Zhuravlev had also taken trips to Turkey in 2014
and 2015, and to Vietnam in 2018.
Case: 25-60410 Document: 91-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/18/2026

No. 25-60410
4
On February 7, 2025, the IJ denied his application, holding that
Zhuravlev failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution, and failed to establish that he was more likely than not to be
tortured if he returned to Russia. Zhuravlev appealed. The BIA affirmed the
IJ in full. It reasoned that Zhuravlev traveled freely to and from Russia with
his spouse for four years without issues, freely entered and exited Russia, and
delayed leaving Russia for ten months after the propaganda law passed. It also
deemed Zhuravlev’s anecdotal evidence unconvincing. Zhuravlev filed a
petition for review of the BIA’s decision.
II.
We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual
findings for substantial evidence. Rubio v. Bondi, 147 F.4th 568, 575–76 (5th
Cir. 2025). “Under this deferential standard, we will not grant [a
noncitizen]’s petition unless the evidence ‘compels’ a contrary conclusion
to the factual determinations reached by the [IJ].” Id. at 575 (quoting Zhao v.
Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, the petitioner
“must show ‘that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
could reach a contrary conclusion.’” Id. at 575–76 (quoting Bertrand v.
Garland, 36 F.4th 627, 631 (5th Cir. 2022)).
III.
A.
To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must show that he is a
“refugee” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). A “refugee” is a
person who is unable to return to his country “because of [past] persecution
or a well-founded fear of [future] persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Persecution is “harm inflicted either by the
government or by private actors whom the government ‘is unable or
Case: 25-60410 Document: 91-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/18/2026

No. 25-60410
5
unwilling to control.’” Bertrand, 36 F.4th at 631 (quoting Sanchez-Amador v.
Garland, 30 F.4th 529, 533 (5th Cir. 2022)).
To establish past persecution, an applicant must show a “harm
inflicted on the [noncitizen] on account of a statutorily enumerated ground
by the government or forces that a government is unable or unwilling to
control.” Nikpay v. Barr, 838 F. App’x 30, 32–33 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam)
(citation omitted). “A showing of past persecution entitles [a noncitizen] to
a presumption of future persecution.” Id. at 33 (citing 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.16(b)(1)(i)). Barring this presumption, however, an applicant must
show that “a reasonable person in the same circumstances would fear
persecution if deported.” Id. (citation omitted); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); see
also Rubio, 147 F.4th at 579.
Here, Zhuravlev does not provide sufficient evidence to compel a
contrary conclusion to that reached by the BIA, that Zhuravlev failed to
establish that he suffered past persecution. Specifically, he cannot show that
he experienced systematic harm demonstrating a “pattern of sustained
pursuit” or a “regular and methodical targeting.” See Gjetani v. Barr, 968
F.3d 393, 398 (5th Cir. 2020). At best, Zhuravlev demonstrates irregular
instances of harassment and bullying that do not rise to the “extreme” level
of persecution. See Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 909 (5th Cir. 2019); Gjetani,
968 F.3d at 398. Zhuravlev likewise failed to provide sufficient evidence to
show a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Qorane, 919 F.3d at 909;
Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 398.
The BIA and the IJ acknowledged that their respective holdings were
brief, but they nevertheless considered Zhuravlev’s argument that Russia has
a “pattern and practice” of harming LGBTQ+ people. They then each
determined that anecdotal evidence and mere “concerns” were insufficient
Case: 25-60410 Document: 91-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/18/2026

No. 25-60410
6
to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future prosecution. Thus,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum.
B.
To obtain protection under the CAT, an applicant must show “that
it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the
proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). “Torture is an
extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser
forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that do not
amount to torture.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Such torture must be
“inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of,
a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1). The standard for establishing entitlement to withholding of
removal is more stringent than the standard for asylum. See Dayo v. Holder,
687 F.3d 653, 658–59 (5th Cir. 2012).
Here, Zhuravlev does not provide sufficient record evidence to show
that he is entitled to protection under the CAT. Specifically, because
Zhuravlev fails to show past or future persecution for reasons stated above,
and instead proffers anecdotal evidence and instances of intolerance from
individuals, he cannot demonstrate that he would be tortured if he returned
to Russia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Thus, substantial evidence supports
the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal under the CAT.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, Zhuravlev’s petition for review is
DENIED.
Case: 25-60410 Document: 91-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/18/2026

No. 25-60410
7
James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I agree with the majority that substantial evidence exists for the BIA’s
conclusions that Zhuravlev did not establish past persecution and that he is
not entitled to relief under CAT. However, the BIA and IJ failed to
adequately address critical evidence related to Zhuravlev’s fear of future
persecution, so I would grant the petition for review and remand to the
agency for future consideration.
“To establish a well-founded fear of persecution, an alien must have
a subjective fear of persecution, and that fear must be objectively
reasonable.” Rubio v. Bondi, 147 F.4th 568, 579 (5th Cir. 2025) (citation
modified). Zhuravlev has stated that he subjectively fears returning to Russia,
and the Government does not contest this.
To demonstrate that his fear is objectively reasonable, Zhuravlev must
show that he would either be singled out for persecution or that Russia has a
pattern or practice of persecuting those similarly situated to him. Zhao v.
Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). To be objectively reasonable, he
need not show that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted,
only that there is a reasonable possibility of persecution. Qorane, 919 F.3d at
910 n.2. Indeed, “[t]here is little reason to generally suppose that a
government’s past actions in this respect create an ‘outer limit’ on its future
actions.” Abdel-Masieh v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 73 F.3d 579,
584 (5th Cir. 1996).
While we review the BIA’s decisions for substantial evidence, those
decisions are “deficient if [they] fail[] to reflect meaningful consideration”
of the petitioner’s evidence. Mejia-Alvarenga v. Garland, 95 F.4th 319, 324
(5th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). Thus, it is well-established in our caselaw
that the BIA “abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a reasoned
explanation for its decision, ignores or fails to fully address important aspects
Case: 25-60410 Document: 91-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/18/2026

No. 25-60410
8
of an individual’s claim, or fails to meaningfully consider relevant evidence.”
Prado-Majano v. Blanche, 176 F.4th 335, 342 (5th Cir. 2026) (citation
modified); Sylejmani v. Sessions, 729 F. App’x 317, 320 (5th Cir. 2018) (per
curiam); Kassomi v. Garland, No. 22-60336, 2023 WL 4992824, at *2 (5th
Cir. Aug. 4, 2023) (per curiam).
Here, the IJ and BIA failed to meaningfully address evidence offered
by Zhuravlev critical to deciding whether he had an objectively reasonable
fear of future persecution. The BIA thus lacked substantial evidence to deny
him asylum.
Shortly after Zhuravlev left Russia, the Russian Supreme Court
allowed the Russian Government to “designate the ‘international
LGBT[Q] public movement’ as an extremist organization.” This has
steadily led to a clampdown on LGBTQ rights across Russia. For example,
Russian law enforcement has “raided gay clubs and bars across Moscow” in
the aftermath of the ruling. And the broad sweep of Russia’s “anti-
propaganda law” could “allow the authorities to go after anyone for any
activities remotely related to LGBT[Q] rights.” The record even contains
evidence that Russia has tried to create a database of LGBTQ people. Some
argue that these steps could lead to mass monitoring and prosecution of
people like Zhuravlev. Arbitrary arrests under the propaganda law have
already taken place.
“While we do not require that the BIA address evidentiary minutiae
or write any lengthy exegesis, its decision must reflect meaningful
consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s
claims.” Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 585 (citation modified). Here, the IJ simply
dismissed the evidence without mentioning it and cursorily concluded that
Zhuravlev failed to demonstrate that he would be persecuted. It supported
this conclusion simply by stating that “‘[r]eports of’ and ‘concerns about’
Case: 25-60410 Document: 91-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/18/2026

No. 25-60410
9
instances of persecution do not substitute for evidence.” And the BIA’s
analysis of future persecution relied exclusively on past events while simply
dismissing the evidence discussed above as “anecdotal.” And the majority
compounds this error by again failing to explicitly mention much of this
evidence.
The BIA is not required to discuss the significance of every piece of
evidence. On remand, the BIA could again rule against Zhuravlev. But to
ignore such a concerning collapse of human rights in Russia without
comment reflects a lack of meaningful consideration of Zhuravlev’s
arguments.
I respectfully dissent.

Case: 25-60410 Document: 91-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/18/2026