Melnikova v. Holder , 372 F. App'x 704 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                             MAR 24 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    IRINA VALERYEVNA MELNIKOVA;                      No. 05-76741
    VYACHESLAV VISSARIONOVICH
    TIGAY,                                           Agency Nos. A096-356-452
    A096-356-453
    Petitioners,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted March 3, 2010
    Pasadena, California
    Before: SCHROEDER, RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    Irina Melnikova, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of a
    final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the immigration
    judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
    protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Melnikova’s husband,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    Vyacheslav Tigay, is a derivative applicant whose petition depends on the merits
    of Melnikova’s petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)
    and deny the petition for review.
    “[W]here the IJ has reason to question the applicant’s credibility, and the
    applicant fails to produce non-duplicative, material, easily available corroborating
    evidence and provides no credible explanation for such failure, an adverse
    credibility finding will withstand appellate review.” Sidhu v. INS, 
    220 F.3d 1085
    ,
    1092 (9th Cir. 2000).
    The IJ had reason to question Melnikova’s credibility. Melnikova’s asylum
    application indicated that she left Uzbekistan due to threats that she would be
    prosecuted unless she paid a fine. Similarly, a psychologist testified that
    Melnikova feared returning to Uzbekistan because she fled the country before
    paying a fine the Uzbek police claimed she owed. Tigay also testified that
    Melnikova was wanted for questioning in Uzbekistan relating to the fine.
    However, Melnikova’s testimony did not attribute her failure to pay the fine as a
    reason why she left Uzbekistan or why she feared returning there; Melnikova did
    not mention the fine at all. Additionally, Melnikova testified that her parents could
    not attend their church in Uzbekistan, whereas Tigay testified that his parents
    encountered no problems attending the same church.
    Moreover, Melnikova “fail[ed] to produce non-duplicative, material, easily
    available corroborating evidence and provide[d] no credible explanation for such
    failure.” 
    Sidhu, 220 F.3d at 1092
    . Melnikova traveled to the United States in 2002
    and met with an attorney who told her the asylum process would require many
    documents. Melnikova then returned to Uzbekistan for seven months, during
    which time she was allegedly persecuted by the authorities. But Melnikova failed
    to obtain medical documents relating to the attacks she claimed to have suffered, or
    evidence corroborating her church membership or that she was arrested or harmed
    on account of such membership.
    Because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding,
    there is substantial evidence for denying Melnikova’s application for asylum and
    withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 
    348 F.3d 1153
    , 1156 (9th Cir.
    2003). Melnikova’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
    testimony that the IJ found not credible. See 
    id. at 1157.
    PETITION DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-76741

Citation Numbers: 372 F. App'x 704

Filed Date: 3/24/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023