Bykov v. Wilkinson ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60002 Document: 00515764596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-60002 March 3, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Vladimir Bykov, also known as Vladimir N. Bykov,
Petitioner,
versus
Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A076 187 206
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Vladimir Bykov, a native and citizen of Russia, was admitted to the
United States in 2000, as a nonimmigrant worker with authorization to
remain for a temporary period not to exceed June 30, 2002. In 2010, he was
served with a Notice to Appear, charging him with remaining in the United
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60002 Document: 00515764596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 20-60002
States for a time longer than permitted. He has filed a petition seeking review
of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his
appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum
and withholding of removal. He has abandoned, for failure to brief, any
challenge to the BIA’s denial of protection under the Convention Against
Torture. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
Because the IJ’s decision influenced the BIA’s decision, both
decisions are reviewable. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009).
We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal
conclusions de novo. Id.; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002).
Both the IJ and the BIA found that Bykov was not entitled to relief
because he failed to show that his fear of persecution was objectively
reasonable. In order to establish that a fear of persecution is objectively
reasonable, the applicant can show that he would be singled out for
persecution or that there exists a pattern or practice of persecution of a group
similarly situated. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005).
The crux of Bykov’s claim is that, were he to return to Russia, the
Russian government would identify him as a scientist who once studied
nuclear physics, the government would offer him a job in the field of nuclear
science, he would refuse to accept the job, the government would discover or
assume that he refused to accept the job due to his pro-democracy political
opinions, and the government would persecute him due to some combination
of his refusal to work and his political opinions. However, Bykov presented
no evidence to support his claim that the Russian government forces similarly
situated scientists to work for the government and persecutes them if they
refuse. Thus, he has not shown that his “situation will probably result in
persecution” or “that persecution is a reasonable probability,” INS
v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 440 (1987) (internal quotation marks and
2
Case: 20-60002 Document: 00515764596 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 20-60002
citation omitted), or that the evidence otherwise compels a result contrary to
that reached by the IJ and BIA, see Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306.
Accordingly, Bykov has failed to show that he is eligible for asylum.
See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536. He has also failed to meet the higher standard of
showing that he is entitled to withholding of removal. See Efe, 293 F.3d at
906. The petition for review is DENIED.
3