Andrian Anton Marin v. US Attorney General , 514 F. App'x 947 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-12706 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12706
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A087-355-649
ANDRIAN ANTON MARIN,
Petitioner,
versus
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
___________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________________________
(April 1, 2013)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Andrian Marin, a citizen of Moldova, seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his
Case: 12-12706 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 2 of 5
application for asylum. 1 Mr. Marin initially sought relief in 2008 based on his
contention that he was persecuted because of an imputed political opinion and an
imputed ethnic status.
Mr. Marin was born in Moldova, but lived in Transnistria, a separatist region
of Moldova, for several years. During the removal proceedings, Mr. Marin testified
that he was ridiculed in Transnistria because he was from Moldova, and that in
Moldova, he was ridiculed because he had developed a Russian accent, which led
Moldovans to perceive him as a Transnistrian. He presented evidence of the
hostilities between Moldovans and Transnistrians and described how he was
frequently mocked and harassed because of his accent and ethnicity. Although the
IJ found Mr. Marin to be a credible witness, he ultimately denied relief after
concluding that the incidents described by Mr. Marin did not constitute past
persecution. The IJ also concluded that Mr. Marin failed to show a well-founded
fear of future persecution. The BIA dismissed Mr. Marin’s appeal after
independently determining that he had not suffered past persecution and adopting
the IJ’s conclusions regarding future persecution.
On appeal, Mr. Marin contends that the BIA erred in failing to adequately
consider the aggregate effects of a “lifetime of marginalization, harassment, and
1
The Immigration Judge also denied Mr. Marin’s request for withholding of removal and
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18. Mr. Marin does not
challenge the denial of CAT relief on appeal.
2
Case: 12-12706 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 3 of 5
discrimination.” He also asserts that he established a well-founded fear of future
persecution based on the violence that still exists in the region and the tension
between Moldovans and Transnistrians.2 After review, we disagree and deny the
petition.
We review the BIA’s decision, and we must also examine the IJ’s decision
to the extent that it was expressly adopted by the BIA. See Mohammed v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 547 F.3d 1340, 1344 (11th Cir. 2008). Findings of fact will not be disturbed
if there is substantial evidence to support them, see id., and we give considerable
deference to such findings, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
agency’s decision. See Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004)
(en banc).
The Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security may grant asylum
to an applicant who qualifies as a refugee. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A
“refugee” is defined as:
[A]ny person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality
or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any
country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is
unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail
himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
2
To the extent that Mr. Marin seeks review of the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal,
we do not have jurisdiction over that claim because he did not raise it in his notice of appeal to
the BIA, see Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge, ¶ 6 [A.R. at 63–64]
(assigning error to the IJ’s finding on past and future persecution), and his brief before the BIA
offered no substantive argument on the issue. See Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1367
(11th Cir. 2011).
3
Case: 12-12706 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 4 of 5
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion . . . .
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To prove past persecution, an asylum applicant must
show that he was persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Silva v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006). Persecution has been defined as
“an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society
regards as offensive [and] requires more than a few isolated incidents of verbal
harassment or intimidation, unaccompanied by any physical punishment, infliction
of harm, or significant deprivation of liberty.” Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338,
1355 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Minor physical abuse,
for example, does not amount to persecution. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
577 F.3d 1341, 1353 (11th Cir. 2009).
We find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Mr. Marin suffered nothing
more than discrimination and harassment which—though regrettable—do not
amount to past persecution. The record indicates that Mr. Marin was kicked and
thrown in a canal by his fellow students, but these isolated incidents of minor
physical abuse do not rise to the level of persecution. Even in the aggregate, the
incidents described by Mr. Marin do not compel the conclusion that he suffered
past persecution. See Silva, 448 F.3d at 1239 (“[O]nly in a rare case does the
record compel the conclusion that an applicant for asylum suffered past
persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
4
Case: 12-12706 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 5 of 5
Similarly, Mr. Marin failed to show a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Generalized conditions in a country are insufficient to establish
persecution. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 n.7 (11th Cir.
2005). Although the record indicates general civil unrest in the region, Mr. Marin
has not shown specific facts indicating that he will be persecuted in Moldova
because of his Russian accent or any perceived affiliation with Transnistria.
Accordingly, we deny Mr. Marin’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
5