Iryna Dunets 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRYNA DUNETS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71205
Agency No. A098-700-329
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Iryna Dunets, a native of the former Soviet Union and a citizen of Belarus,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NED/Research 07-71205 2
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252.
We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility findings, Singh v. Ashcroft,
367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because
Dunets’ testimony and declaration were inconsistent regarding the mistreatment
her father suffered while in detention following Dunets’ disclosure of the
kidnaping scheme, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001)
(inconsistencies about the events leading up to applicant’s departure can form the
basis of an adverse credibility determination), and the IJ reasonably found Dunets’
explanations for the discrepancies unconvincing, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d
1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Dunets failed to
demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --