Pavlova v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

441 F.3d 82 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Pavlova v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
441 F.3d 82 (2006)

Facts

Tatiana Pavlova (defendant) entered the United States from the Russian Federation, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal proceedings. At the hearing, Pavlova testified she had been subjected to threats and violence in Russia due to her membership in the Baptist church. Pavlova testified that Russian National Unity (RNU), a Russian ultra-nationalist group, had started targeting Baptists in Russia starting in May 1994. Pavlova testified that she and other Baptists were threatened and beaten by RNU and that RNU members killed one member of her prayer group. In 1996, Pavlova and other Baptists founded a business to distribute religious literature, which was targeted by the RNU. Pavlova’s business partner was killed, and Pavlova testified she was threatened and attacked in her home. Pavlova testified she fled to Belgorod to escape the RNU, but the group followed her. Pavlova testified that she was raped in one attack in Belgorod, causing her to flee to Moscow. However, fellow Baptists in Moscow warned Pavlova that she was in danger, causing Pavlova to flee to the United States. Pavlova testified that she did not apply for asylum immediately when she arrived in the United States. However, the murder of another Baptist and warnings about her safety from her relatives caused her to apply for asylum and for withholding of deportation. Pavlova also submitted documentary evidence showing that the Russian government had refused to control the violence perpetrated by the RNU and even helped RNU members to avoid prosecution. The immigration judge (IJ) did not credit Pavlova’s testimony of religiously motivated persecution. The IJ also concluded that even if Pavlova’s testimony was credible, the mistreatment she faced in Russia lacked the required governmental involvement to constitute persecution under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Pavlova appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ’s decision. Pavlova appealed to the Second Circuit, arguing the IJ and BIA erred in their refusal to grant her application for asylum and for withholding of deportation and her application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wesley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership