Mikhail Igorevich Savin 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MIKHAIL IGOREVICH SAVIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-75015
Agency No. A095-302-168
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Mikhail Igorevich Savin, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

05-75015 2
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
the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th
Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
Savin alleges that he was hospitalized for one month after police beat and
tortured him. The BIA found Savin not credible based on a government report that
stated the surgery department of the emergency center was closed at the time of
Savin’s alleged injuries and it did not operate on, or treat anyone with his alleged
diagnosis. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination
because the credibility of Savin’s alleged injuries and treatment go to the heart of
his claim. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004). We decline to
consider Savin’s argument that the IJ misinterpreted the report because he did not
raise this argument before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th
Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Savin’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Because Savin’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not
credible, and he points to no evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be
tortured in Uzbekistan, his CAT claim also fails. Id. at 1156-57.

-- 2 of 3 --

05-75015 3
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --