Vitalii Trubnikov v. Loretta E. Lynch , 656 F. App'x 277 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VITALII TRUBNIKOV, No. 14-73266
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-589-673
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Vitalii Trubnikov, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims and we review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d
1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Trubnikov’s contentions that the agency violated his due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Trubnikov’s
experiences in Ukraine, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (being
teased, harassed, and discriminated against without any significant physical harm
did not compel finding of past persecution); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th
Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a small
category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause
significant actual ‘suffering or harm.’”) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s conclusion that Trubnikov failed to establish his fear of
harm in Ukraine is on account of a protected ground. See Padash v. INS, 358 F.3d
1161, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2004); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41
(9th Cir. 2008) (under the REAL ID Act, an applicant must prove a protected
2 14-73266
ground is at least ‘one central reason’ for persecution). Thus, his withholding of
removal claim fails. See Padash, 358 F.3d at 1167.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Trubnikov’s
CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Ukraine. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73266