Police summons, threats and a criminal case in Russia:
BIA upholds asylum denial
Unpublished BIA decision (Russia), December 19, 2025, AIJ Hunsucker (5th Cir.)
Immigration court: El Paso, Texas
U.S. Court of Appeals: Fifth Circuit
Counsel for the parties: Raisa Stepanova (respondent); DHS counsel is not identified in the decision
Case outcome: The U.S. Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the appeal from the Immigration Judge’s July 9, 2025, decision denying asylum and other forms of protection. In denying the motion to remand, which was based on newly submitted evidence that a criminal case had been initiated against the respondent in 2023, the Board reasoned that an initiated criminal case does not, by itself, establish a sufficient risk to the respondent.
1. Factual background
The respondent, a Russian citizen and supporter of an opposition political party, participated in antiwar rallies. In 2022, police officers who were aware of his opposition views repeatedly warned him not to participate in those rallies, threatened to send him to jail, and told him that a criminal case regarding an extremist charge was being prepared against him. Law enforcement’s interest in him was also partly related to his father’s political beliefs.
Despite repeated police threats, the respondent was not subjected to physical violence or imprisonment. Moreover, he was able to obtain a passport and cross the Russian border repeatedly without incident.
After he left Russia, police continued to show interest in him. They asked his relatives about his whereabouts and delivered a summons to his mother requiring him to appear for questioning as a witness. The respondent believed the summons was a pretext to detain him in connection with criminal proceedings. His sister also sent him messages about police visits, while his mother reported continuing police visits and inquiries about his whereabouts.
A criminal case was subsequently initiated against the respondent in Russia. This is reflected in the BIA’s description of official notices and resolutions from Russian law enforcement authorities, dated 2023, two years before his Immigration Court hearing in July 2025. The respondent submitted those documents with his motion to remand, explaining that he had only recently obtained them from his father and therefore could not present them during the original Immigration Court proceedings.
After the Immigration Court hearing in July 2025, the respondent entered into a retainer agreement with a Russian attorney in connection with the criminal case. During the same period, his mother continued to have contact with the police regarding her son’s case. To corroborate these circumstances, the respondent submitted to the BIA the attorney retainer agreement and a sworn statement from his mother describing additional police interactions after his merits hearing. Despite law enforcement’s continuing interest in the respondent, his mother and sister remained in Russia without suffering violence or other harm.
2. Position of the Immigration Judge and the BIA
Although the Immigration Judge found the respondent credible, the judge concluded that he had not experienced past persecution and that his fear of future persecution was “too speculative.” The judge considered the police summons, police visits to relatives, and threats to initiate a criminal case, but gave significant weight to the fact that the respondent’s prior encounters with police had not resulted in imprisonment or physical harm. Although the police were already aware of his political views, he was able to obtain a passport and travel across the Russian border without incident. The judge also found unpersuasive the respondent’s belief that the summons to appear for questioning as a witness was a pretext for detaining him.
Citing Fifth Circuit precedent, the BIA stated that the respondent had not presented sufficient evidence that, if arrested, he would face prolonged imprisonment, cruel treatment, or other forms of persecution. The BIA cited decisions holding that a month-long detention under unpleasant but not brutal conditions does not necessarily rise to the level of persecution and that isolated incidents of violence or threats may be insufficient absent a systematic, sustained pattern of assaults or other acts of oppression.
The BIA also considered that the respondent’s mother and sister continued to live in Russia without suffering harm, although he argued that his problems with the authorities concerned him personally.
The BIA agreed with the Immigration Judge that the country conditions evidence submitted by the respondent, describing arbitrary detention, torture, and the criminalization of dissent in Russia, did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of persecution specific to him, given that his earlier encounters with police had not resulted in imprisonment or physical harm.
The Board declined to consider the argument concerning a pattern or practice of persecution as an independent basis for asylum because it had not been raised before the Immigration Judge. The BIA nevertheless stated that, even if it considered the argument, the country conditions evidence did not establish persecution that was systemic, pervasive, and organized against similarly situated individuals.
The BIA denied the motion to remand, finding the respondent’s explanation for why he could not obtain the criminal-case documents earlier unpersuasive. As to the other newly submitted evidence (the retainer agreement with a Russian attorney and his mother’s statement about later police interactions), the BIA found that it likewise would not change the outcome because it failed to establish a sufficient risk that the respondent would suffer harm rising to the level of persecution, even if arrested.
3. Country conditions commentary
Summons for interrogation as a witness. The Immigration Judge and the BIA did not find persuasive the respondent’s belief that a summons to appear for interrogation as a witness could serve as a pretext for his detention. In Russian law enforcement practice, it is common for a person summoned for questioning as a witness to subsequently become a suspect or an accused person. The human rights organization OVD-Info specifically warns that a person summoned as a witness may become a suspect after questioning. Accordingly, being identified as a witness in a summons does not, by itself, rule out the risk of subsequent criminal prosecution. There are also known cases in which a person summoned for questioning as a witness was subsequently detained on other grounds.
Consequences of criminal prosecution. The respondent submitted official documents concerning a criminal case already initiated against him in 2023, but the BIA decision does not identify the specific provision of the Russian Criminal Code or his procedural status. Russian statistics on acquittals and on lengthy prison sentences in politically motivated cases were not taken into account in the case.
Obtaining a passport and crossing the Russian border without incident. At the beginning of Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine, Russian law did not, in itself, preclude obtaining a passport or crossing the border, and doing so was common practice even for someone with the procedural status of a suspect (unless a decision restricting that person’s departure had been issued). This applies even more strongly to someone with witness status. Moreover, leaving Russia without incident does not rule out the initiation of a criminal case after departure or criminal prosecution of a person already abroad.
Absence of violence and torture. The Immigration Judge and the BIA attached significant weight to the fact that the respondent had interacted with police several times without suffering physical harm, had obtained a passport, and had left Russia without incident. Yet the absence of violence in earlier encounters with law enforcement does not preclude a change in the nature of the persecution following the initiation of criminal proceedings. In addition, international human rights reports confirm that violence and torture are particularly prevalent against political activists.
Recommendations. A country conditions expert report could help counsel document a pattern or practice of persecution of opposition and antiwar activists and explain Russian criminal prosecution practices to the court, allowing for a more accurate assessment of the risks the respondent would face if returned to Russia.
To request a country conditions expert report in an asylum or other protection case, or the full text of the decision, please contact us by email: info [at] countryconditions.expert
This summary is for informational purposes only, not legal advice.
Keywords: Russia; unpublished BIA decision; El Paso Immigration Court; Fifth Circuit; political persecution; political repression; Russian opposition; antiwar views; criminal case involving extremism; threats of criminal prosecution; police summons; Russian law enforcement; summons for questioning as a witness; change in procedural status; police visits to family members; well-founded fear of future persecution; departure from Russia without incident; country conditions evidence; arbitrary detention and torture; pattern or practice of persecution; Tesfamichael v. Gonzales; month-long detention; motion to remand; criminal case in Russia.