Irina Valeryevna Melnikova; Vyacheslav Vissarionovich Tigay 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IRINA VALERYEVNA MELNIKOVA;
VYACHESLAV VISSARIONOVICH
TIGAY,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76741
Agency Nos. A096-356-452
A096-356-453
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 3, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Irina Melnikova, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of a
final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the immigration
judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Melnikova’s husband,
FILED
MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Vyacheslav Tigay, is a derivative applicant whose petition depends on the merits
of Melnikova’s petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)
and deny the petition for review.
“[W]here the IJ has reason to question the applicant’s credibility, and the
applicant fails to produce non-duplicative, material, easily available corroborating
evidence and provides no credible explanation for such failure, an adverse
credibility finding will withstand appellate review.” Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085,
1092 (9th Cir. 2000).
The IJ had reason to question Melnikova’s credibility. Melnikova’s asylum
application indicated that she left Uzbekistan due to threats that she would be
prosecuted unless she paid a fine. Similarly, a psychologist testified that
Melnikova feared returning to Uzbekistan because she fled the country before
paying a fine the Uzbek police claimed she owed. Tigay also testified that
Melnikova was wanted for questioning in Uzbekistan relating to the fine.
However, Melnikova’s testimony did not attribute her failure to pay the fine as a
reason why she left Uzbekistan or why she feared returning there; Melnikova did
not mention the fine at all. Additionally, Melnikova testified that her parents could
not attend their church in Uzbekistan, whereas Tigay testified that his parents
encountered no problems attending the same church.

-- 2 of 3 --

Moreover, Melnikova “fail[ed] to produce non-duplicative, material, easily
available corroborating evidence and provide[d] no credible explanation for such
failure.” Sidhu, 220 F.3d at 1092. Melnikova traveled to the United States in 2002
and met with an attorney who told her the asylum process would require many
documents. Melnikova then returned to Uzbekistan for seven months, during
which time she was allegedly persecuted by the authorities. But Melnikova failed
to obtain medical documents relating to the attacks she claimed to have suffered, or
evidence corroborating her church membership or that she was arrested or harmed
on account of such membership.
Because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding,
there is substantial evidence for denying Melnikova’s application for asylum and
withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003). Melnikova’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony that the IJ found not credible. See id. at 1157.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --