Anatoliy Tsirkunov; Konstantin Yakubovsky 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANATOLIY TSIRKUNOV;
KONSTANTIN YAKUBOVSKY,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74723
Agency Nos. A097-907-126
A097-907-127
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Anatoliy Tsirkunov and Konstantin Yakubovsky, natives and citizens of
Belarus, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
FILED
JAN 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74723 2
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the new
standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
The IJ found petitioners not credible for a number of reasons, including
inconsistencies between their testimonies regarding their July 2004 arrests and the
date they left Belarus, and Yakubovsky’s inconsistent testimony regarding when he
was expelled from school. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the Real ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”);
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001) (adverse credibility
determination supported in part based on inconsistencies relating to the events
leading up to petitioner’s departure). In the absence of 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 found to be
not credible, and petitioners do not point to any other evidence that shows it is
more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Belarus, their CAT claim

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74723 3
also fails. See id. at 1156-57. Petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred by failing
to separately analyze their CAT claim is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --