Kseniya Kulyakina 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 is case suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KSENIYA KULYAKINA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71721
Agency No. A097-364-440
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Kseniya Kulyakina, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NED/Research 07-71721 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on
the IJ’s demeanor finding, see Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.
1999) (special deference given to demeanor findings based on non-verbal
communication) and Kulyakina’s misrepresention concerning her home address for
purposes of her asylum application, see Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1066-67
(9th Cir. 2005) (lying on an asylum application is an “indication of dishonesty”).
In the absence of credible testimony, Kulyakina failed to establish eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because Kulyakina’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency
found not credible and she points to no further evidence to show it is more likely
than not she wold be tortured if returned to Russia, her CAT claim fails. See id. at
1157.
Kulyakina’s motion to accept supporting documents is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --