Marina Parada; Stanislav Nakhoda 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).
DL/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARINA PARADA;
STANISLAV NAKHODA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74608
Agency Nos. A096-057-857
A096-057-858
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Marina Parada and her former husband Stanislav Nakhoda, both natives
and citizens of Russia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
FILED
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

DL/Research 06-74608 2
their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility determinations,
Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907, 910 (9th Cir. 2004), and we review de
novo claims of due process violations, Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based upon petitioners’ submission of fraudulent birth certificates and fraudulent
certification of their documentary evidence. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741,
745 (9th Cir. 2004). Absent credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and there is no other evidence in the record that compels a
finding that it is more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Russia,
we deny the petition as to their CAT claim. See id. at 1156-57.
Petitioners contend the IJ violated their due process and statutory rights
because they did not have an opportunity to cross-examine the government’s
forensic examiner regarding a forensic report they contend is unreliable. The

-- 2 of 3 --

DL/Research 06-74608 3
proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair” that petitioners were “prevented
from reasonably presenting [their] case” because petitioners had the opportunity to
submit witness testimony and evidence challenging the forensic report, and did not
object to the forensic examiner’s failure to testify at their last hearing. See
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation omitted);
see also Zahedi v. INS, 222 F.3d 1157, 1164 n.6 (9th Cir. 2000).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the agency did not consider the entire
record, because there is no evidence rebutting the presumption that the agency
reviewed all the relevant evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,
1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --