Hanna Yurievna Kolushko, aka Hanna Julia Hryhorehok, aka Anaid Garibyan 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).
KN/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HANNA YURIEVNA KOLUSHKO, aka
Hanna Julia Hryhorehok, aka Anaid
Garibyan,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76651
Agency No. A079-727-302
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Hanna Yurievna Kolushko, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen
of Ukraine, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
FILED
JAN 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KN/Research 05-76651 2
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741
(9th Cir. 2007), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Kolushko’s omissions from her asylum application that police beat her
with a baton and kicked her during a political protest in Snyatin, and that the
hospital purposefully gave her inadequate medical treatment because of her
political beliefs, which caused her child to be stillborn. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,
332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s omission of a “dramatic incident”
from asylum application supported adverse credibility determination). In the
absence of credible testimony, Kolushko failed to establish she is eligible for
asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioner failed to establish a likelihood of torture in Ukraine. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --