Nataliya Dudkevich v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATALIYA NIKOLAEVNA No. 08-72114
DUDKEVICH,
Agency No. A097-545-635
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Nataliya Nikolaevna Dudkevich, a native and citizen of Belarus, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Dudkevich demonstrated a
sufficiently individualized threat of persecution to establish a well-founded fear of
persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2006) (the
recurrence of sporadic violence against Chinese Christians in Indonesia was
insufficient to demonstrate eligibility for asylum “absent an individualized risk of
persecution or a pattern and practice of persecution”). Accordingly, Dudkevich’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Dudkevich failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Dudkevich failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured
upon her return to Belarus. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th
Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72114