## Facts

- Lilia Stserba and her family are ethnic Russians connected to Estonia who entered the United States lawfully and sought asylum and withholding of removal based on ethnicity.
- After Estonia regained independence in 1991, residents who were not citizens (or descendants of citizens) from before 1940 were denationalized; Stserba and another family member became stateless.
- Stserba later regained Estonian citizenship in 1993 through an irregular circumstance; her child Anton also became a citizen.
- Estonia implemented a policy refusing to recognize Russian academic credentials absent a bilateral agreement.
- Stserba held a Russian medical degree and had worked as a pediatrician in Estonia, but the new policy ended her ability to practice medicine; she later worked at a private Russian-language school where a hiring official overlooked the degree’s invalid status.
- Petitioners also alleged ethnically motivated mistreatment involving Anton’s medical care and harassment of Stserba’s older son who remained in Estonia.
- The Immigration Judge found petitioners credible but denied asylum and withholding, concluding the harms were insufficient.
- The BIA affirmed the denial without addressing whether ethnically motivated denationalization resulting in statelessness could constitute persecution.

## Issues

1. Whether the agency erred by failing to consider whether ethnically motivated revocation of citizenship resulting in statelessness can constitute “persecution” for asylum purposes.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Estonia’s refusal to recognize Stserba’s Russian medical degree, and the resulting employment exclusion, was neither persecution nor on account of ethnicity.
3. Whether remand was required for the agency to reassess asylum (including discretion) and withholding of removal in light of the correct persecution analysis.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded.
- The court held the BIA failed to consider whether revocation of citizenship on account of ethnicity—particularly when it results in statelessness—may amount to persecution.
- The court held the BIA lacked substantial evidence for its finding that Stserba’s job limitations from invalidation of her Russian medical degree were neither persecution nor linked to ethnicity.
- The court instructed the BIA on remand to consider: (1) whether ethnically motivated citizenship revocation resulting in statelessness is persecution and whether Stserba was persecuted on that basis; (2) whether asylum should be granted as a matter of discretion given past persecution from professional exclusion; and (3) whether petitioners qualify for withholding of removal.

## Legal Principles

- The court reviews the BIA’s factual determinations under the substantial-evidence standard and will vacate where the record does not support the agency’s conclusions.
- The agency must address material theories of persecution raised by the record; failure to evaluate a claimed form of persecution (such as ethnically motivated denationalization leading to statelessness) can require remand.
- State action that effectively forecloses a person’s ability to pursue a profession may constitute past persecution when tied to a protected ground such as ethnicity.
- A finding of past persecution triggers further agency analysis, including whether to grant asylum in the exercise of discretion and whether the higher standard for withholding of removal is satisfied.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded because the BIA did not analyze whether ethnically motivated denationalization resulting in statelessness could be persecution and because substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s rejection of persecution based on Estonia’s ethnicity-linked invalidation of Stserba’s medical degree and resulting professional exclusion.


Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964 (6th Cir. 2011)