Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0654-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lubov Mikhailovna MAKOVITCH; Victoria Makovitch, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 03-70941, [ AXX-XXXXXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 11, 2004.
    Rosy H. Cho, Sharon Dulberg, McVey, Mullery & Dulberg, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Peter D. Keisler, Luis E. Perez, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before PREGERSON, KOZINSKI and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. With respect to Lubov Makovitch, the immigration judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. See He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 595—96 (9th Cir.2003). The IJ made specific reference to material omissions and contradictions in Lubov’s recounting of her claimed persecution. See id.

2. Likewise, the IJ’s determination that Victoria Makovitch had not suffered persecution or demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution was supported by substantial evidence. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 997 (9th Cir.2003).

DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.