DocketNumber: 10-71485
Judges: Reinhardt, Fletcher, Rawlinson
Filed Date: 9/27/2011
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 27 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETER LEONIDOVICH TSIMBALYUK, No. 10-71485 Petitioner, Agency No. A071-171-792 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 June 10, 2011 Seattle, Washington Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Peter Leonidovich Tsimbalyuk (Tsimbalyuk) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to 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. 1. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) correctly determined that violation of Revised Code of Washington section 9A.56.140(1) is categorically an aggravated felony theft offense as defined by8 U.S.C. § 1101
(a)(43)(G). See Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder,581 F.3d 1059
, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2009). Tsimbalyuk’s conviction under that statute renders him statutorily ineligible for asylum and cancellation of removal. See Rendon v. Mukasey,520 F.3d 967
, 973 (9th Cir. 2008), as amended (explaining that these forms of relief are unavailable to a petitioner who has been convicted of an aggravated felony); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(a)(3), 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i). 2. The BIA’s determination that Tsimbalyuk failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal under8 U.S.C. § 1231
(b)(3) was supported by substantial evidence. See Viridiana v. Holder,630 F.3d 942
, 951 (9th Cir. 2011); see also8 C.F.R. § 1208.16
(b)(1)-(2). 3. The BIA’s determination that Tsimbalyuk failed to establish eligibility for relief pursuant to the CAT was supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha 2 v. Holder,590 F.3d 1034
, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010); see also8 C.F.R. § 1208.16
(c) (requiring a showing of torture). PETITION DENIED. 3