Andrei Rojankovski v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the U.S. Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREI ROJANKOVSKI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71445
Agency No. A072-433-164
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 9, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge. **
An immigration judge denied petitioner Andrei Rojankovski’s applications
for asylum and withholding of removal, and the BIA dismissed Rojankovski’s
appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny Rojankovski’s
petition for review.
FILED
MAY 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Rojankovski may have been “teased, bothered, discriminated against and
harassed” in Soviet Russia, but the record “does not compel a conclusion that [he]
suffered from past persecution” on account of his religion. See Nagoulko v. I.N.S.,
333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). A reasonable
adjudicator could have concluded that the incidents Rojankovski described neither
individually nor cumulatively rose to the level of persecution and that
Rojankovski’s malefactors were motivated by his belligerence rather than his
religion. See Halaim v. I.N.S., 358 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding no
past persecution where petitioners “were the victims of many derogatory comments
and, over the course of 50 years, a few incidents that might be deemed police
harassment”); cf. Krotova v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The
combination of sustained economic pressure, physical violence and threats against
Petitioner and her close associates, and the restrictions on Petitioner’s ability to
practice her religion cumulatively amount to persecution.”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojankovski’s motion to
remand, because Rojankovski failed to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). See
In re Yewondwosen, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1025, 1026 (BIA 1997) (en banc) (stating a
“failure to submit an application for relief . . . will typically result in the Board’s
denial of the motion”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rojankovski’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim because it is unexhausted. Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644
(9th Cir. 2012).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --