Anastasiya Krushevskaya v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-030-703. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999692740]. [15-1366]

Appeal: 15-1366

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1366

ANASTASIYA KRUSHEVSKAYA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

September 3, 2015

Decided:

November 4, 2015

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander J. Segal, THE LAW OFFICES OF GRINBERG & SEGAL,
P.L.L.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn
Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Melissa K. Lott, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1366

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Anastasiya Krushevskaya, a native and citizen of Belarus,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(Board)

judge’s

denial

dismissing
of

her

her

appeal

requests

for

from

the

asylum,

immigration

withholding

of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript
of Krushevskaya’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence.
We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8
U.S.C.

§

1252(b)(4)(B)

(2012),

and

supports the Board’s decision.

that

substantial

evidence

See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502

U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
We

have

also

considered

the

various

bases

for

Krushevskaya’s claim that the immigration judge’s conduct at the
merits hearing violated her due process rights and find no error
in the Board’s conclusion that Krushevskaya failed to show that
the immigration judge was biased or that she did not receive a
full or fair hearing.
immigration

judges

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) (2012) (giving
authority

to

“interrogate,

examine,

and

cross-examine the alien and any witnesses”); Rusu v. INS, 296
F.3d 316, 321-22 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing that alien must be
“accorded an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in

2

Appeal: 15-1366

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/04/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

a meaningful manner, i.e., . . . [to] receive a full and fair
hearing on [her] claims”).
Accordingly,

we

deny

the

reasons stated by the Board.
18, 2015).
legal
before

for

review

for

the

In re: Krushevskaya (B.I.A. Mar.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

petition

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

3