Valentin Gannitskiy v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALENTIN GANNITSKIY,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73601
Agency No. A074-806-631
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Valentin Gannitskiy, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JAN 26 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub
v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Gannitskiy’s submission of an altered birth certificate, the inconsistencies
regarding his surname, and his failure to corroborate his claim. See id. at 1045;
Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004) (adverse credibility finding
supported where fraudulent documents and inconsistencies in testimony went to
the heart of the claim). Gannitskiy’s explanations do not compel the contrary
result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of
credible testimony, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Gannitskiy’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
statements the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other
evidence in the record to compel a finding that it is more likely than not he would
be tortured if returned to Ukraine. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 923
(9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-73601 2

-- 2 of 2 --