* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRINA VALERYEVNA MELNIKOVA; VYACHESLAV VISSARIONOVICH TIGAY, Petitioners,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 05-76741 Agency Nos. A096-356-452 A096-356-453

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 3, 2010 Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER, RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. Irina Melnikova, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Melnikova’s husband, 

# FILED

MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALSVyacheslav Tigay, is a derivative app licant whose petition depends on the merits of Melnikova’s petition. We have juri sdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition for review. “[W]here the IJ has reason to question the applicant’s credibility, and the applicant fails to produce non-duplicative, material, easily available corroborating evidence and provides no credible explan ation for such failure, an adverse credibility finding will withst and appellate review.” Sidhu v. INS , 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000). The IJ had reason to question Melnikova’s credibility. Melnikova’s asylum application indicated that she left Uzbe kistan due to threats that she would be prosecuted unless she paid a fine. Si milarly, a psychologist testified that Melnikova feared returning to Uzbekist an because she fled the country before paying a fine the Uzbek police claimed she owed. Tigay also testified that Melnikova was wanted for questioning in Uzbekistan relating to the fine. However, Melnikova’s testimony did not attr ibute her failure to pay the fine as a reason why she left Uzbekistan or why sh e feared returning there; Melnikova did not mention the fine at all. Additionally, Melnikova testified that her parents could not attend their church in Uzbekistan, wh ereas Tigay testified that his parents encountered no problems attending the same church.Moreover, Melnikova “fail[ed] to produce non-duplicative, material, easily available corroborating evidence and provi de[d] no credible explanation for such failure.” Sidhu , 220 F.3d at 1092. Melnikova traveled to the United States in 2002 and met with an attorney who told he r the asylum process would require many documents. Melnikova then returned to Uzbekistan for seven months, during which time she was allegedly persecuted by the authorities. But Melnikova failed to obtain medical documents relating to the attacks she claimed to have suffered, or evidence corroborating her church membership or that she was arrested or harmed on account of such membership. Because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, there is substantial evidence for denying Melnikova’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Melnikova’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony that the IJ found not credible. See id. at 1157. PETITION DENIED.