Romachkine v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VLADIMIR ROMACHKINE, No. 07-72758
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-445-354
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Vladimir Romachkine, a native of Kazakhstan and citizen of Russia,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence factual findings, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), and
we review de novo questions of law, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274-75
(9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based upon Romachkine’s submission of both a fraudulent birth registration
confirmation document and a fraudulent Russian Federation resident card. See
Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible
testimony, Romachkine failed to establish he is eligible for asylum. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Romachkine’s contention that the IJ deprived him of a reasonable
opportunity to provide corroborating evidence or rebut the government’s
investigative reports fails because the IJ granted several continuances after the
authenticity of the documentary evidence was placed at issue. See Colmenar v.
INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-72758