Karlovich v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 604 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIY KARLOVICH, No. 07-72265
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-641-438
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Sergiy Karlovich, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Karlovich claims that the Ukrainian authorities are still interested in him
based on his refusal to serve in the then Soviet-controlled military over 20 years
ago. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that this claim lacked inherent
plausibility. See Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting
that testimony that is implausible in light of objective evidence can support an
adverse credibility finding). Substantial evidence further supports the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination because Karlovich’s asylum application omitted the fact
that the police were constantly looking for him at his home and work for over 20
years, and this omission goes to the heart of his claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
959, 962-64 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Karlovich’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Karlovich’s CAT claim is based on the same statements found to be
not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels
the conclusion it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to
2 07-72265
Ukraine, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See id. at
1156-57.
To the extent Karlovich contends the IJ demonstrated bias, we lack
jurisdiction to review this claim because it was not exhausted before the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 07-72265