N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT VLADISLAV ZUB C U , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70618 Age n c y No. A089-302-939 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, R A W LINSON, a

nd PAR KER , *** C i rc u it Judge s. Pe titione r Vla disla

v Zubc u (Zubc u ), a

c i tiz e n of M oldova , pe titions for re vie w of a

de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) dism issing



# FIL ED JUN 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble B arrington D. Pa

rke r, Jr., Se nior C i rc u it Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Se c ond C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Zubc u’ s a

ppe a l of the im

m igration judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd re lie f pursua

nt to theC onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). Zubc u c onte nds tha

t substa ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support the B IA’ s a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm i nation be c a

use the B IA im

prope rly re lie d on inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n Zubc u’ s first a

nd se c ond a sy lum

a pplic ations. Zubcu a l so m a i nta i ns tha t C AT re lie f is wa

rrante d ba se d on his pa st pe rse c ution in M oldova . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nation ba se d on irre c onc ila

ble disc re pa

nc ie s be twe e n Zubc u’ s first a nd se c ond a sy l um a pplic ations. Se e Singh v . Ly nc h , 802 F.3d 972, 975-76 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ C onside ring the tota l ity of the c irc um sta

nc e s, a nd a l l re le v an t fa c tors, a trie r of fa c t m a y ba se a c re dibility

de te rm ination on, a

m ong othe r things, the

inhe re nt pla u sibility of [the pe titione r’ s] a c c ount a nd the c onsiste nc y

of [the pe t itione r’ s] sta te m e nts with other e vide nc e of re c ord (inc luding there ports of theDe pa rtm e nt of State on c ountry c o nditions) without re ga rd to whe the r an

inc onsiste n c y , ina c c ura c y , or fa lse h o od goe s to thehe art of [the pe titione r’ s] c l a im .” ) (c ita tions, one a lte ra tion, a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Zubc u a sse rte d in his first a pplic ation tha

t h e wa s pe rse c ute d due to his politic a l opinion a nd re ligion a

nd ne ve r m e ntione d

any pe rse c ution ste m

m ing from

his pe rc e ive d se xua l orie n tation. Zubc u te stifie d tha

t he ne ve r inform e d

the a sy lum

offic e r that he wa s pe rse c ute d 2ba se d on his se xua l orie ntation a nd a c knowle dge d tha

t his pre se nt pe rse c ution c la im wa s diffe re n t from

tha t in his first a sy lum

a pplic ation. Zubc u a l so c o nc e de d that he wa s ne ve r a

m e m be r of a politic a l orga

niz ation in M o ldova . As the B IA c orre c tly c o nc l ude d, Zubc u ne ve r re c ante d the ba sis for his first a s y lum a pplic ation. The se inc o nsiste nc ie s supporte d the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation. Se e id. The B IA did not e rr in c onside ring Zubc u’ s first a s y lum a pplic ation e ve n though Zubcu lim ite d his te s tim ony to his se c ond a

pplic ation. Se e id. (c onc luding that the B IA m a

y re ly on a ny doc um e nts in there c ord to support its a d ve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion). Although Zubc u m a inta ins tha

t he atte m pte d to shie ld his pe rsona l life from

his frie nd who fille d out thefirst a sy lum a pplic ation, theB IA wa s not re quire d to a c c e pt Zubc u’ s e xpla nation. Se e Zamanov

v . Holde r , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th C ir. 2011) (obse rving tha t “ the re c ord doe s not c om pe l the finding that the IJ’ s unwillingne s s to be lie ve this e xpla n ation, in light of the

im porta nc e of the o m itte d inc ide n ts to his a sy l um c la im , wa s e rrone ous” ) (c ita tion omitte d). The B IA prope rly

de nie d Zubc u’ s a

pplic ations for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l ba se d on its a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. Se e Singh , 802 F.3d a t 977. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use Zubc u fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t it wa s “ m ore like ly

tha n not” that he would be torture d if 3he re turne d to M oldova . Id. (c ita tion omitte d). B e y ond his disc re dite d te stim ony , Zubc u doe s not pe rsua sive ly point to a

ny e vide n c e in the re c ord wa rranting C AT re lie f. Se e id. (artic ulat ing tha t “ whe n a pe titione r’ s c l a im s unde r the C AT a re ba se d on the sam e sta

te m e nts tha

t the B IA de te rm ine d to be not c re dible in the a sy lum c onte xt, the a ge nc y m ay re ly upon thesa

m e c re d i bility

de te rm ination in de ny ing both the

a sy l um and C A T c la im s” ) (c ita

tion, a lte ra tions, a

nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4