Anastasiya Krushevskaya v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1366 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1366 ANASTASIYA KRUSHEVSKAYA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
