Bondarev v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 11, 2026
• Docket: 25-60380
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-60380 Document: 73-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-60380 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 11, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Vadim Bondarev, Clerk

Petitioner,

versus

Todd Wallace Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A244 681 485 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Vadim Bondarev, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In this court, he only challenges the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-60380 Document: 73-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2026

No. 25-60380

First, Bondarev argues that the agency’s finding that he failed to show a nexus between his political opinion and the harm he suffered is not supported by substantial evidence. However, he fails to demonstrate that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the agency’s determination. See Changsheng Du v. Barr, 975 F.3d 444, 447–48 (5th Cir. 2020); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). We therefore will not address Bondarev’s additional arguments regarding past and future persecution. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 150 (5th Cir. 2019). Second, Bondarev argues that his former counsel made significant citation errors in his brief to the BIA and asks this court to consider how those errors impacted current counsel’s briefing. He has not demonstrated a realistic possibility that the BIA would have found any error in that regard. See Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400, 407 (5th Cir. 2010); Mai v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 2006); Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). The petition for review is DENIED.