Timofei Chernov v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A089-953-077 Copies to all parties and the agency. [999632001]. [14-2191]

Appeal: 14-2191

Doc: 24

Filed: 07/31/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2191

TIMOFEI CHERNOV,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

June 29, 2015

Decided:

July 31, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Urbanski, LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. URBANSKI, PLLC,
Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad,
Assistant Director, Carmel A. Morgan, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2191

Doc: 24

Filed: 07/31/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Timofei
Republic,

Chernov,

petitions

Immigration

a

native

for

Appeals

review

(“Board”

and
of

or

citizen

an

order

“BIA”)

of
of

the

the

dismissing

Kyrgyz

Board

his

of

appeal

from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum,
withholding

of

removal,

(“CAT”). *

Against

Torture

record,

including

court

and

the

and

the

protection
We

have

evidence

transcript

of

under

the

thoroughly

presented

Chernov’s

to

Convention

reviewed

the

merits

the

immigration

hearing.

We

conclude that the record evidence does not compel any factual
findings contrary to those made by the immigration judge and
affirmed by the Board, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and
that

substantial

evidence

supports

the

Board’s

decision

uphold the denial of Chernov’s applications for relief.
INS v.

Elias–Zacarias,

determination

that

asylum . . . can

be

presented . . . [is]

502

[an

U.S.

478,

applicant

reversed
such

that

is]

only
a

*

481

(1992)
not
if

reasonable

(“The

eligible
the

to
See

BIA’s
for

evidence

factfinder

would

Chernov did not challenge in his administrative appeal the
immigration judge’s denial of his application for protection
under the CAT. As such, to the extent that Chernov seeks review
of the disposition of this claim, we lack jurisdiction to
consider it.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Kporlor v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (“It is well
established that an alien must raise each argument to the BIA
before we have jurisdiction to consider it.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).

2

Appeal: 14-2191

Doc: 24

have

to

Filed: 07/31/2015

conclude

that

the

Pg: 3 of 4

requisite

fear

of

persecution

existed.”).
We have also considered the various bases for Chernov’s
claim that the immigration judge’s conduct at the merits hearing
violated his due process rights.

On this record, we, like the

Board, are not persuaded that there was a defect that rendered
the

hearing

fundamentally

unfair

prejudice resulted therefrom.

or

that,

if

there

was,

any

See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d

243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) (2012)
(directing

immigration

judges

to

“interrogate,

examine,

and

cross-examine the alien and any witnesses”); Iliev v. INS, 127
F.3d 638, 643 (7th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the immigration
judge

“has

broad

discretion

to

control

the

manner

of

interrogation in order to ascertain the truth”); cf. Cham v.
Attorney Gen. of U.S., 445 F.3d 683 (3d Cir. 2006) (granting
petition for review and holding the immigration judge violated
due

process

included,

in

among

increasingly

his

conduct

other

distraught

at

things,

the

merits

hearing,

“continually

petitioner,

which

abus[ing]

rendering

him

unable

an
to

coherently respond to [the judge’s] questions”).
Accordingly,

we

deny

reasons stated by the Board.
2014).
legal

the

petition

for

review

for

the

See In re: Chernov (B.I.A. Oct. 2,

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately
3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 14-2191

before

Doc: 24

this

court

Filed: 07/31/2015

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

4