Rozaliya Mygalyuk; Mykhailo Benderliy v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROZALIYA MYGALYUK; MYKHAILO
BENDERLIY,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72887
Agency Nos. A079-610-393
A079-610-394
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Rozaliya Mygalyuk and Mykhailo Benderliy, natives of the Soviet Union
and citizens of Ukraine, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
Mygalyuk’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72887 2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Mygalyuk did not suffer
past persecution because the discrimination and harassment she endured did not
constitute persecution, even when considered cumulatively. See Halaim v. INS,
358 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, substantial evidence supports the
IJ’s conclusion that Mygalyuk failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003); Hakeem v.
INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (claim weakened or undercut when the
applicant returns to the country or similarly-situated family members remain there
without incident). Accordingly, Mygalyuk’s asylum claim fails.
Because Mygalyuk 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 Mygalyuk failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured
if returned to Ukraine. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --