Volodymyr Bolotov v. Eric Holder, Jr.
OPINION filed : The petition for review is DENIED. Decision not for publication. Raymond M. Kethledge (AUTHORING) and Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judges; Jon Phipps McCalla, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0203n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
VOLODYMYR RIMOVICH BOLOTOV,
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Mar 12, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE UNITED STATES
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
BEFORE: KETHLEDGE and DONALD, Circuit Judges; McCALLA, District Judge.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Volodymyr Bolotov came to the United States from
Ukraine on a tourist visa in 2001. He applied for asylum a year later, and later applied for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). During a
hearing with respect to his applications, Bolotov told an immigration judge that government
agents in Ukraine had killed his mother, father-in-law, and brother-in-law because Bolotov saw
Ukrainian Secret Service agents burying a headless corpse near a highway. But the IJ denied
Bolotov’s applications, and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed
that decision, and Bolotov filed this petition for review. We deny the petition.
At his hearing before the IJ, Bolotov testified as follows. Bolotov was a law-enforcement
officer for the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Ukraine. AR at 181. In 1995, while he was on
The Honorable Jon Phipps McCalla, United States District Judge for the Western District of
Tennessee, sitting by designation.
Bolotov v. Holder
duty, he and three other officers came upon government agents burying a woman’s headless
body. AR at 184-85. After Bolotov reported the incident to his superiors, they forced him to
resign and told him to keep quiet. AR at 190. The government placed him under surveillance,
and he soon began receiving threatening phone calls. AR at 192. About two years later, in 1997,
somebody murdered Bolotov’s father-in-law.
AR at 331.
Bolotov thinks the killers were
government agents who mistook his father-in-law for him, because his father-in-law had
borrowed Bolotov’s car. AR at 193-96; 231-32. About a year later, Bolotov let his brother-inlaw borrow a car; the brother-in-law was never seen again. AR at 197. Bolotov says that, after
he asked the police to investigate the disappearance, the police handcuffed him to a chair and
beat him. AR at 199. Shortly thereafter Bolotov left Ukraine and came to the United States on a
tourist visa. Bolotov’s wife, daughter, and mother remained behind. The Ukrainian government
continued to threaten and abuse them. AR at 226. Bolotov’s mother died in January 2002; her
death certificate says that she died of heart disease, but Bolotov says she died as a result of
injuries she suffered when police officers searched her house and pushed her to the ground. AR
Bolotov applied for asylum in March 2002.
Later that year, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service served Bolotov with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging
him with remaining in the United States after his visa expired. Bolotov conceded removability,
but renewed his request for asylum and also applied for withholding of removal and protection
under the CAT. In 2011—nine years later—an immigration judge denied Bolotov’s applications
and ordered him removed. The IJ denied the application for three reasons: first, because Bolotov
lacked credibility, based on several purported inconsistencies in his story; second, because
Bolotov failed to produce corroborating evidence; and third, because Bolotov failed to
Bolotov v. Holder
demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of his political opinions. The BIA affirmed the
IJ’s decision in 2013. This petition for review followed.
Where, as here, the BIA issues its own opinion, we review the BIA’s decision. Koulibaly
v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2008). “To the extent the BIA adopted the immigration
judge’s reasoning, however, [we] also review the immigration judge’s decision.” Khalili v.
Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). We review the BIA’s findings of fact for substantial
evidence. Abdurakhmanov v. Holder, 735 F.3d 341, 345 (6th Cir. 2012). Under that standard,
we defer to the BIA’s decision so long as the evidence would allow a reasonable fact-finder to
reach the same conclusion. Koulibaly, 541 F.3d at 619.
Bolotov first challenges the BIA’s credibility determination.
Bolotov filed his
application before the REAL ID Act took effect, so the BIA’s determination “must be supported
by specific reasons and must be based upon issues that go to the heart of [his] claim.”
Abdurakhmanov, 735 F.3d at 345 (internal quotation marks omitted). If inconsistencies in
Bolotov’s story “cannot be viewed as attempts by [Bolotov] to enhance his claims of
persecution, they have no bearing on his credibility.” Id. at 345-46.
Here, the BIA determined that Bolotov lacked credibility based on several purported
inconsistencies. First, the BIA said that Bolotov offered inconsistent accounts of the death of his
father-in-law, Vladimir. Bolotov testified that Vladimir was shot on September 9 and died four
days later, on September 13. AR at 193-94. On the asylum application, however, Bolotov had
stated that Vladimir drove to a summer house near Kiev and “[t]he same night he was killed.”
AR at 359. The BIA believed that the statement that Vladimir “was killed” the night he drove to
the summer house was inconsistent with Bolotov’s testimony that Vladimir died four days after
somebody shot him. But the crux of Bolotov’s story—that Vladimir was shot and killed after he
Bolotov v. Holder
borrowed Bolotov’s car—never changed. And whether Vladimir was technically “killed” on the
day he received a mortal wound or on the day he finally succumbed to it has has no bearing on
Bolotov’s credibility, especially considering that Bolotov is not a native English speaker and thus
testified through a translator.
Next, the BIA relied on purported inconsistencies in Bolotov’s description of the incident
that led to his mother’s death. Bolitov testified that, after he left Ukraine, police officers
searched his mother’s house and knocked her to the ground, which caused her to lose
consciousness and die a few days later. AR at 244. In his application Bolotov stated that the
incident occurred on February 7, 2002. AR at 361. In his testimony, however, Bolotov said the
incident occurred on January 6. AR at 226. A death certificate lists his mother’s date of death as
January 8, 2002, AR at 328. According to the BIA, the inconsistent dates, and the death
certificate’s mention of heart disease, make Bolotov’s story unbelievable. We disagree: the
inconsistent dates are a minor discrepancy, which cannot be seen as attempts to exaggerate
Bolotov’s account of how his mother died. See Abdurakhmanov, 735 F.3d at 345-46. Indeed,
his account of how she died remained consistent throughout. Nor does the death certificate’s
stated cause of death support the BIA’s credibility determination: a coroner’s determination that
Bolotov’s mother died of a heart attack is consistent with Bolotov’s testimony that a few days
earlier the police had threatened her and knocked her to the ground.
Finally, the IJ said that Bolotov made inconsistent statements about the investigation into
the disappearance of his brother-in-law, Sergei.
Bolotov testified that the police did not
investigate the disappearance, AR at 197, but in his application he included a newspaper clipping
which stated that the Department of Internal Affairs was searching for Sergei. AR 374. Bolotov
explained this purported discrepancy during his hearing: he testified that the clipping was an ad
Bolotov v. Holder
placed by Sergei’s family shortly after they notified the Department that he was missing. AR at
229. Thus, all the newspaper clipping shows is that Sergei disappeared; it says nothing about
whether the Ukrainian authorities conducted a meaningful investigation.
In short, none of the purported inconsistencies relied on by the BIA “go to the heart of”
Bolotov’s application for asylum; and indeed several are not even inconsistencies. Id. at 345
(internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, this record suggests that the IJ sought out minor
discrepancies to buttress his decision to deny Bolotov’s application. Thus, the record lacks
substantial evidence to support the BIA’s credibility determination.
Still, we must deny Bolotov’s petition if the BIA’s decision can be upheld on the
alternative ground that Bolotov failed to provide corroborating evidence to support his story. See
Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004). “The absence of  corroborating
evidence can lead to a finding that an applicant has failed to meet her burden of proof” in an
asylum application, so long as “it is reasonable to expect corroborating evidence.” Id.
Here, almost nothing in the record—other than Bolotov’s testimony—supports his story.
And it was reasonable for the BIA to expect corroborating evidence to support Bolotov’s
allegations of constant harassment over a period of several years. Bolotov testified that he was
still in contact with his wife, but he failed to offer an affidavit or letter from her that corroborated
any part of his story. AR at 227. He further testified that he possessed documentation of the
injuries he suffered when the police beat him, and that he received a letter from his mother’s
neighbor which described the incident that caused her death. AR at 236, 246. But Bolotov
produced none of these documents in support of his application. Thus, by Bolotov’s own
admission, he could have provided corroborating evidence, but he failed to do so. Given that
Bolotov v. Holder
failure, a reasonable factfinder could agree with the BIA’s finding that Bolotov failed to provide
corroborating evidence, and therefore failed to meet his burden of proof.
The petition for review is denied.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?