Case ID: f-appx_450/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter Leonidovich TSIMBALYUK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71485.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 10, 2011.
    Filed Sept. 27, 2011.
    Debra A. Morales, Marks Holmes Foley & Morales P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Laura Halliday Hickein, OIL, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Peter Leonidovich Tsimbalyuk (Tsimbal-yuk) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

1. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) correctly determined that violation of Revised Code of Washington section 9A.56.140(1) is categorically an aggravated felony theft offense as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). See Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1059, 1060-61 (9th Cir.2009). Tsimbalyuk’s conviction under that statute renders him statutorily ineligible for asylum and cancellation of removal. See Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 973 (9th Cir.2008), as amended (explaining that these forms of relief are unavailable to a petitioner who has been convicted of an aggravated felony); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(a)(3), 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i).

2. The BIA’s determination that Tsim-balyuk failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) was supported by substantial evidence. See Viridiana v. Holder, 630 F.3d 942, 951 (9th Cir.2011); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)-(2).

3. The BIA’s determination that Tsim-balyuk failed to establish eligibility for relief pursuant to the CAT was supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir.2010); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (requiring a showing of torture).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.