Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Evgenii Zhuravlev, a gay Russian citizen, entered the United States without a valid entry document in June 2024 and conceded removability. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, alleging that he had suffered harm and would face persecution or torture because of his sexual orientation if returned to Russia.
Zhuravlev described bullying in school, being slapped and pressured to resign by an employer, an assault outside a gay club, and threats from a co-worker’s husband. He also cited Russia’s anti-LGBTQ laws and reports of club raids, criminal prosecutions, and conversion therapy. The immigration judge denied relief, finding no past persecution, well-founded fear of future persecution, or likelihood of torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, emphasizing Zhuravlev’s repeated travel to and from Russia without official interference, his delayed departure after passage of the propaganda law, and the anecdotal nature of some of his evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied Zhuravlev’s petition for review. Applying substantial-evidence review, the majority held that the record did not compel rejection of the BIA’s finding that the harm Zhuravlev experienced consisted of irregular instances of harassment and bullying rather than the systematic, extreme mistreatment required to establish past persecution.
The majority also held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Zhuravlev had not established a well-founded fear of future persecution. It concluded that the IJ and BIA considered and permissibly rejected his pattern-or-practice argument and found his anecdotal evidence and stated concerns insufficient. The court further upheld denial of CAT protection, reasoning that the record did not compel a finding that Zhuravlev was more likely than not to be tortured by, at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of a public official if returned to Russia.
Judge Graves dissented in part. He agreed that substantial evidence supported the rulings on past persecution and CAT relief, but concluded that the agency failed to meaningfully address important evidence concerning worsening conditions for LGBTQ+ people in Russia. He would have remanded for further consideration of Zhuravlev’s fear of future persecution.
Key Takeaways
- Isolated incidents of bullying, threats, employment mistreatment, and private violence did not compel a finding of past persecution under the deferential substantial-evidence standard.
- The majority found that the agency adequately considered and rejected Zhuravlev’s claim that Russia engages in a pattern or practice of persecuting LGBTQ+ people.
- The partial dissent viewed evidence of recent Russian laws, raids, arrests, monitoring, and the designation of the international LGBTQ movement as extremist as requiring more meaningful agency consideration.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding standard for overturning immigration factfinding: a petitioner must show that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the agency’s, not merely that the record could support a different result. It also highlights disagreement over how thoroughly immigration adjudicators must discuss country-conditions evidence when assessing an asserted pattern or practice of persecution.
Although the majority upheld the denial of all requested relief, the dissent emphasized that past freedom from official interference does not necessarily resolve whether later legal and political developments create an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.