Mekhriniso Razikova v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : We deny the petition for review, decision not for publication. Martha Craig Daughtrey, Circuit Judge; David W. McKeague, Circuit Judge and Jane Branstetter Stranch, Circuit Judge.

Case: 14-3801

Document: 16-1

Filed: 03/05/2015

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0171n.06
No. 14-3801
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MEKHRINISO ALYSHEROVNA
RAZIKOVA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

BEFORE:

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Mar 05, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE UNITED STATES
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
APPEALS

DAUGHTREY, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Mekhriniso Alysherovna Razikova, a citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions
through counsel for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Razikova was born in Uzbekistan in 1984. She first entered this country in 2006 and
returned four times between then and 2009; she has remained here since that time. She applied
for the above relief and appeared before an IJ for a series of hearings on the merits of her
application. Members of her family also testified on her behalf. Razikova related that she had
been employed for a few months at a bank in Uzbekistan as a Korean translator when she noticed
that the bank and some local officials were embezzling money from Korean investors. She took
her concerns to management, which resulted in her firing. She then went to the authorities, but
she had no proof of her claim. She testified that those involved in the embezzlement then took a

Case: 14-3801

Document: 16-1

Filed: 03/05/2015

Page: 2

No. 14-3801
Razikova v. Holder
number of actions against her and her family, including vandalizing her father’s car, making
threatening phone calls, and causing problems for her parents at their jobs. The authorities
eventually prosecuted many of those involved in the embezzlement. Razikova’s cousin, who
also worked at the bank, was detained for approximately one month before being cleared of
involvement.
At the conclusion of the hearings, the IJ found that Razikova was not credible and that
her application was frivolous. Moreover, he concluded that, even if her testimony could be
credited, she was not entitled to relief. The BIA affirmed the denial of relief but vacated the IJ’s
finding that the application was frivolous. In her brief before this court, Razikova takes issue
with the adverse credibility finding and reasserts the merits of her claims. This court granted her
a stay of removal pending the appeal.
Razikova first challenges the finding that her testimony was not credible. We review a
credibility determination to discern whether it is supported by substantial evidence, and we will
not reverse unless the evidence compels a contrary determination. Hachem v. Holder, 656 F.3d
430, 434 (6th Cir. 2011). There is substantial evidence in support of the negative finding in this
case. The most glaring example concerns the claim of the vandalism to her father’s car. At her
first hearing, Razikova testified that the car was vandalized after she left Uzbekistan for the
United States, and that she did not see the car after it was vandalized. At the end of that first
hearing, the IJ pointed out that this was contrary to her written application, which stated that the
car was vandalized the night that she went to the authorities with her story of embezzlement at
the bank. The IJ granted a continuance to allow Razikova to explain this discrepancy, among
others. At the second hearing, Razikova’s mother testified that Razikova was still in Uzbekistan
when the vandalism occurred. And at the third hearing, Razikova testified that she was there and

-2-

Case: 14-3801

Document: 16-1

Filed: 03/05/2015

Page: 3

No. 14-3801
Razikova v. Holder
saw the car after it was vandalized. This did nothing to explain her contrary testimony at the first
hearing. The record does not compel a finding that Razikova’s testimony was credible.
Moreover, even if her testimony could be credited, the evidence submitted by Razikova is
not so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite persecution
rendering her eligible for asylum.

See Ouda v. INS, 324 F.3d 445, 451 (6th Cir. 2003).

Persecution is an extreme concept. Ali v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 407, 410 (6th Cir. 2004). Nothing
Razikova and her family experienced qualified as persecution; she was therefore not entitled to a
presumption that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388
F.3d 941, 950 (6th Cir. 2004). Therefore, she was required to offer specific information showing
a real threat of persecution if she returns to Uzbekistan. Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396,
412 (6th Cir. 2007). Razikova’s cousin was detained for one month before being cleared of
involvement in the embezzlement at the bank. Razikova should fear nothing worse, as she
reported the scheme to the authorities originally. Her family should fear no further reprisals, as
they are now living in this country, having obtained visas through the lottery. And Razikova
does not have to return to her hometown, where she can be connected to the embezzlement
incident.
Having failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, Razikova cannot meet the higher
burden of establishing eligibility for withholding of removal, see El-Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d
250, 257 (6th Cir. 2009), or for protection under the CAT. Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631, 641
(6th Cir. 2005).
For all of the above reasons, we deny the petition for review.

-3-