Case ID: f-appx_385/html/0680-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roman KITSOULA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71636.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 18, 2010.
    Filed June 24, 2010.
    Alex Gortinsky, Esq., Law Offices of Alex Gortinsky, Fair Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stephanie Toussaint, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BYBEE, TYMKOVICH, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roman Kitsoula, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum. The BIA denied the application because: (1) Kitsoula did not provide sufficient evidence of the identity of his attackers; (2) there was no evidence that the police were unwilling or unable to control the persecutors; and (3) the change in country conditions eliminated any fear of future persecution.

The BIA erred in holding that Kitsoula was required to know the identity of his persecutors. See Aguilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir.1990). However, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Kitsoula did not establish eligibility for asylum, because he failed to demonstrate the Ukrainian government was unwilling or unable to control his persecutors. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005).

Because the BIA’s second ground for denying petitioner’s application was supported by substantial evidence, we need not address whether the evidence of changed country conditions was sufficient.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Kitsoula did not raise the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) before the BIA. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004). Kitsoula’s counsel conceded that these issues were not before this panel.