Korablina v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
158 F.3d 1038 (1998)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Vera Korablina (defendant) entered the United States from Ukraine on a visitor’s visa. Before her visa expired, Korablina sought asylum, asserting she suffered harassment from ultra-nationalists in Kiev, Ukraine, due to her Jewish heritage. During her hearing, Korablina testified that her father adopted Judaism when he married her mother. Korablina testified that she was denied admittance to university in Kiev due to her ancestry. Korablina testified she was denied career advancement and was fired due to her Jewish ancestry by her ultra-nationalist boss. When she found another job working for a Jewish man, Korablina witnessed the beating and extortion of her boss. Korablina testified that she was assaulted in her office and that her boss later disappeared. Korablina’s daughter, Irene Cimbal, corroborated her mother’s testimony and testified to her own experiences of assault. Cimbal and Korablina testified the Ukrainian police did nothing to prevent the harassment. The immigration judge (IJ) denied Korablina’s application for asylum and withholding of deportation, finding Korablina had only established she was the target of discrimination. Korablina appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which held Korablina failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Korablina appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that she had presented evidence of past persecution on the basis of her religion and that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Trott, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.