Vitalie Bondari v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 594 F. App'x 147 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1896
VITALIE ALEXANDRU BONDARI; OLGA SERGEEVNA VTYURINA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 20, 2015 Decided: February 25, 2015
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph J. Rose, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Joyce R.
Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony Payne,
Assistant Director, Jennifer Paisner Williams, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vitalie Alexandru Bondari, a native of the Soviet Union and
a citizen of Moldova, and his wife, Olga Sergeevna Vtyurina, a
native of the Soviet Union and a citizen of Russia, petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
order denying Bondari’s applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). * Bondari claimed that he was persecuted in Moldova
because of his Roma-Georgian (“Roma”) heritage. The Petitioners
challenge the following findings of fact: (1) Bondari was not a
credible witness; (2) insufficient corroborating evidence
supported his claim; (3) the Petitioners failed to show a
pattern or practice of persecution of Roma in Moldova; and
(4) the Petitioners failed to show that it was more likely than
not that Bondari will be tortured if he returns to Moldova. We
deny the petition for review.
Because the Board did not adopt the IJ’s opinion in whole
or in part, our review is limited to the Board’s order.
Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908 & n.1 (4th Cir. 2014).
Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial evidence
*
Bondari is the primary applicant for relief and Vtyurina
the derivative applicant.
2
supports the Board’s reasons for finding no clear error in the
IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Hui Pan v. Holder,
737 F.3d 921, 926 (4th Cir. 2013). Bondari’s equivocal
testimony regarding his receipt of documents from Moldova
supporting his claim, and his failure to identify the pro-Roma
organization in which he claimed membership, both supported the
adverse credibility finding. We see no reason to disturb the
finding that the Petitioners failed to submit sufficient
evidence corroborating the claims or showing a pattern or
practice of persecuting Roma in Moldova. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012) (“[A]dministrative findings of fact are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled
to conclude to the contrary.”). We also conclude that
substantial evidence supports the finding that Bondari did not
demonstrate that he is more likely than not to be tortured in
Moldova, so he was not eligible for relief under the CAT.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3