Vlada Blisciuc v. U.S. Attorney General , 598 F. App'x 893 ( 2015 )

Case: 14-13804 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13804
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A087-919-885
VLADA BLISCIUC,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(April 8, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-13804 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Vlada Blisciuc, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions for review of a
decision affirming the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of
removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals
affirmed the findings of an immigration judge that Blisciuc did not suffer past
persecution and lacks a well-founded fear of future persecution. We deny the
petition.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Blisciuc was never persecuted
while living in Moldova. In 2009, Blisciuc attended an anti-communism
demonstration at which three persons were killed, but Blisciuc left before the
police harmed any demonstrators. And government officials did not contact
Blisciuc during the month-long interim between the demonstration and her
departure to the United States. Although Bliciuc’s grandparents disappeared in the
1940s allegedly because they opposed the Communist Party, “threatening acts or
harm against other family members does not constitute or imply persecution of the
petitioner where there has been no threat or harm directed against the petitioner.”
Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013). The record
does not compel a finding that Blisciuc suffered past persecution. See Mendoza v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Blisciuc lacks a well-
founded fear of future persecution when she returns to Moldova. Blisciuc
2
Case: 14-13804 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 3 of 4
expressed fears of persecution by the Communist Party for her earlier opposition
efforts, but that political party is no longer in control of the government. Nor is
there any evidence to suggest that its members know of or would target Blisciuc
for her earlier activities.
Blisciuc testified that she feared Roman Caraiman, who employed her in
Florida as a masseuse and who fled to Moldova before being indicted with Blisciuc
in federal court for illegal prostitution and human trafficking, but even if Caraiman
might wish to mistreat Blisciuc because she might testify against him, being a
victim of criminal activities does not “constitute evidence of persecution based on
a statutorily protected ground,” Rodriguez, 735 F.3d at 1310. And there is no
evidence that Caraiman intends to harm Blisciuc. Blisciuc testified that Caraiman
had called her from Moldova, but he sought to employ her when she returned home
and did not threaten her. Blisciuc also testified that Caraiman had not contacted
Blisciuc after she changed her telephone number nor had he attempted to harm her
parents, who still live in Moldova. We cannot say that the record compels a finding
that there is a reasonable possibility that Blisciuc will face persecution when she
returns home. See Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287. And because Blisciuc failed to
establish that she was entitled to asylum, she also cannot satisfy the higher
standard applied to an application for withholding of removal. See Mu Ying Wu v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 745 F.3d 1140, 1157 n.19 (11th Cir. 2014).
3
Case: 14-13804 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 4 of 4
Blisciuc argues that her fear of future persecution stems from her
membership in a social group of “massage girls” and because of the pattern or
practice of the government of persecuting student protestors, but we lack
jurisdiction to consider these arguments. Although Blisciuc cited caselaw about
being persecuted based on membership in a social group in her appeal to the
Board, she failed to identify a specific group to which she belonged or that had
been the victim of a pattern or practice of persecution. “[A]bsent a cognizable
excuse or exception, we lack jurisdiction” to consider arguments that Blisciuc
failed to raise before the Board. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d
1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We DENY Blisciuc’s petition for review.
4