## Facts

- Tatyana Michailovna Parussimova, a native and citizen of Kazakhstan, is ethnically Russian and an Orthodox Christian.
- She entered the United States in May 2005 on a B-1 visa for a work conference and overstayed.
- After her visa expired, she applied for asylum, claiming past persecution and fear of future persecution based on ethnicity and religion, and conceded removability.
- On January 10, 2005, two men confronted her near her home, insulted her, dragged her into an apartment entryway, and said she did not have the right to work for an American company while tearing off her Herbalife pin.
- During the assault, she briefly lost consciousness; the men kicked and spat on her, used anti-Russian insults, told her to leave the country, and attempted to rape her before fleeing when others responded to her screams.
- About a week later, she again saw the men; police detained them briefly, but she later saw them again.
- The men threatened to kill her for reporting them; she escaped, and her cousin (who was with her) was beaten and left unconscious; she testified threats continued.
- The Immigration Judge denied asylum for failure to prove the harm was “on account of” a protected ground; the BIA affirmed.

## Issues

1. Under the REAL ID Act, what does it mean to show a protected ground was “at least one central reason” for the persecution?
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that Parussimova failed to prove her ethnicity or religion was at least one central reason for the attack and threats.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that “one central reason” requires the protected ground to be a central motivating reason—primary, essential, or principal—not minor, tangential, or superficial.
- The court concluded substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Parussimova did not show her ethnicity or religion was one central reason for the attack.
- The petition for review was denied.

## Legal Principles

- For asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), an applicant must prove a protected ground was “at least one central reason” for the persecution.
- A protected ground need not be the sole motive, but it must be a central motivating reason rather than an incidental factor.
- Persecutor motive may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence; hostile statements can be probative but are not dispositive when the record reasonably supports alternative motives.
- In reviewing BIA factfinding on motive, the court applies the substantial-evidence standard and will not disturb the agency’s determination unless the record compels a contrary conclusion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit interpreted the REAL ID Act to require that a protected ground be a primary motivating cause of persecution and upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum because the record permitted a reasonable finding that the attack was centrally motivated by nonprotected reasons rather than the applicant’s ethnicity or religion.


Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009)