Vladislav Zubcu v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VLADISLAV ZUBCU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70618
Agency No. A089-302-939
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and PARKER,*** Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Vladislav Zubcu (Zubcu), a citizen of Moldova, petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
FILED
JUN 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Zubcu’s appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Zubcu
contends that substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination because the BIA improperly relied on inconsistencies between
Zubcu’s first and second asylum applications. Zubcu also maintains that CAT
relief is warranted based on his past persecution in Moldova.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on irreconcilable discrepancies between Zubcu’s first and second asylum
applications. See Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2015)
(“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of
fact may base a credibility determination on, among other things, the inherent
plausibility of [the petitioner’s] account and the consistency of [the petitioner’s]
statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department
of State on country conditions) without regard to whether an inconsistency,
inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of [the petitioner’s] claim.”) (citations,
one alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). Zubcu asserted in his first
application that he was persecuted due to his political opinion and religion and
never mentioned any persecution stemming from his perceived sexual orientation.
Zubcu testified that he never informed the asylum officer that he was persecuted
2

-- 2 of 4 --

based on his sexual orientation and acknowledged that his present persecution
claim was different from that in his first asylum application. Zubcu also conceded
that he was never a member of a political organization in Moldova. As the BIA
correctly concluded, Zubcu never recanted the basis for his first asylum
application. These inconsistencies supported the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination. See id.
The BIA did not err in considering Zubcu’s first asylum application even
though Zubcu limited his testimony to his second application. See id. (concluding
that the BIA may rely on any documents in the record to support its adverse
credibility determination). Although Zubcu maintains that he attempted to shield
his personal life from his friend who filled out the first asylum application, the BIA
was not required to accept Zubcu’s explanation. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d
969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (observing that “the record does not compel the finding
that the IJ’s unwillingness to believe this explanation, in light of the importance of
the omitted incidents to his asylum claim, was erroneous”) (citation omitted). The
BIA properly denied Zubcu’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal
based on its adverse credibility determination. See Singh, 802 F.3d at 977.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Zubcu
failed to demonstrate that it was “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if
3

-- 3 of 4 --

he returned to Moldova. Id. (citation omitted). Beyond his discredited testimony,
Zubcu does not persuasively point to any evidence in the record warranting CAT
relief. See id. (articulating that “when a petitioner’s claims under the CAT are
based on the same statements that the BIA determined to be not credible in the
asylum context, the agency may rely upon the same credibility determination in
denying both the asylum and CAT claims”) (citation, alterations, and internal
quotation marks omitted).
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --