Oksana Vasilyevna Ivanushchak v. JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 21a0018n.06
No. 20-3233
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
OKSANA VASILYEVNA IVANUSHCHAK,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE UNITED STATES
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
APPEALS
BEFORE: COOK, GRIFFIN, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Oksana Vasilyevna Ivanushchak petitions this court for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her removal
proceedings. As set forth below, we DENY Ivanushchak’s petition for review.
I.
Ivanushchak, a native and citizen of Ukraine, entered the United States without inspection,
purportedly in September 2003. In September 2004, Ivanushchak filed an application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on her
membership in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, a political party supporting Ukrainian
independence. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently served Ivanushchak with a
notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging her with removability as an alien present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Ivanushchak
appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and conceded removability as charged.

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 20-3233, Ivanushchak v. Rosen
- 2 -
After a merits hearing, the IJ denied Ivanushchak’s application and ordered her removal to
Ukraine. The IJ found that Ivanushchak was not a credible witness and that she had failed to
establish timely filing of her asylum application. The IJ went on to find that Ivanushchak had
failed to demonstrate her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection.
Ivanushchak appealed the IJ’s decision. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s findings and dismissed
Ivanushchak’s appeal. Ivanushchak then filed a petition for review of the BIA’s order, which this
court denied. Ivanushchak v. Holder, No. 11-4389 (6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013) (order).
Five years later, Ivanushchak filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings based on
the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). The BIA denied
Ivanushchak’s motion to reopen. And Ivanushchak did not seek this court’s review.
Approximately four months later, Ivanushchak filed a second motion to reopen her removal
proceedings, this time based on changed country conditions in Ukraine. According to
Ivanushchak, the conditions for parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Moscow
Patriarchy (UOC-MP) have significantly worsened since her hearing because the government is
working to eradicate the practice of the religion by pressuring members to join the Orthodox
Church of Ukraine (OCU). Ivanushchak sought reopening to apply for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT protection, asserting that, as a parishioner of the UOC-MP, she would not be
able to practice her religion freely and would face harm upon returning to Ukraine. The BIA
denied Ivanushchak’s motion to reopen because she had “not offered reasonably specific
information showing a real threat of persecution.” This timely petition for review followed.
II.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for abuse of
discretion. Trujillo Diaz v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 244, 248 (6th Cir. 2018). We “will find an abuse
of discretion if the denial of the motion to reopen ‘was made without a rational explanation,

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 20-3233, Ivanushchak v. Rosen
- 3 -
inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as
invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.’” Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485,
490 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005)).
The ninety-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen removal proceedings does not apply
if the motion “is based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the
country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and
would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). “The motion to reopen ‘based on changed country conditions [evidence]
cannot rely on speculative conclusions or mere assertions of fear of possible persecution, but
instead must offer reasonably specific information showing a real threat of individual
persecution.’” Gafurova v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 321, 326 (6th Cir. 2018) (alteration in original)
(quoting Harchenko v. INS, 379 F.3d 405, 410 (6th Cir. 2004)). “So, evidence of persecution in
the applicant’s country of removal, without some connection to the applicant herself, will not
suffice.” Trujillo Diaz, 880 F.3d at 250.
The BIA denied Ivanushchak’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings because she had
failed to present “reasonably specific information showing a real threat of persecution.” In support
of her motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, Ivanushchak submitted a new
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the International Religious
Freedom Reports for Ukraine for 2007 and 2018; and “proof of church involvement”—her son’s
baptismal certificate from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and a church notice about
the parish feast day. As the BIA pointed out, this “proof of church involvement” fails to
demonstrate that Ivanushchak has a past or present affiliation with the UOC-MP. Ivanushchak’s
initial application listed her religion as “Orthodox Christian.” In her new application, Ivanushchak
asserted that her religion is “UOC MP,” that she is “a current member of the UOC-MP church,”

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 20-3233, Ivanushchak v. Rosen
- 4 -
and that she attends church weekly with her family and helps with volunteer events and festivals
at her church. Ivanushchak did not provide an affidavit or other statement explaining her purported
relationship with the UOC-MP or the connection between her current church in the United States
and the UOC-MP in Ukraine.
In support of her petition for review, Ivanushchak makes the conclusory assertion that she
demonstrated her involvement in the UOC-MP church, citing her son’s baptismal certificate and
the church flyer. But these documents neither refer to the UOC-MP nor suggest any connection
with the UOC-MP. Ivanushchak also cites the 2007 and 2018 International Religious Freedom
Reports for Ukraine showing worsening conditions for members of the UOC-MP in Ukraine.
Given that Ivanushchak did not substantiate her claimed affiliation with the UOC-MP, “she did
not show that the changed conditions would result in a risk of persecution against her.” Zhang v.
Mukasey, 543 F.3d 851, 855 (6th Cir. 2008).
III.
Ivanushchak has failed to demonstrate that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her
motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Accordingly, we DENY Ivanushchak’s petition for
review.

-- 4 of 4 --