Ruslan Dovganyuk; Oksana Shved 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUSLAN DOVGANYUK; OKSANA
SHVED,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-74789
Agency Nos. A079-393-618
A079-393-619
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 1, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ruslan Dovganyuk and his wife Oksana Shved, natives of the Soviet Union
and citizens of Ukraine, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) decision that adopted the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the
FILED
FEB 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The decision was grounded upon an
adverse credibility finding.
The adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence.
Following a lengthy recess of the petitioner’s hearing, he attempted to buttress his
claim of political persecution by asserting that he had written poems criticizing the
government for a political newspaper. The newspaper communications were not,
however, mentioned in his original affidavit accompanying his request for asylum,
nor were they mentioned in a second affidavit filed sometime later. This
inconsistency is sufficient to support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004).
Petitioner asks us to consider psychological evidence explaining his memory
loss and contends it constitutes evidence to explain his confusion. We can assume
that the petitioner’s mental confusion has an understandable medical basis, but to
prevail, he must establish that there is some compelling basis in the record on
which to find that he suffered from persecution on account of his political opinion.
Given the adverse credibility finding, which we must uphold, there is no such
basis.
There is similarly no basis on which to conclude that it is more likely than
not that petitioners will be tortured if they are returned to Ukraine.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --