NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OLEH KURAIEV, No. 20-70137 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-879-382 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 7, 2021 Seattle, Washington Before: CHRISTEN and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI,** District Judge. Oleh Kuraiev petitions this court for review of his order of removal to Ukraine. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand the matter for further proceedings. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. The government initiated removal proceedings against Kuraiev in December 2018. He subsequently submitted an I-589 Application, seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), alleging persecution based on his political opinion, religion, nationality, and membership in a particular social group.1 The immigration judge (“IJ”) held a hearing, during which Kuraiev was the only witness, and received documentary evidence from the government and Kuraiev. The IJ found that Kuraiev was not credible, and the IJ found that, in light of the adverse credibility determination, Kuraiev failed to establish past persecution. Although it was possible to establish a well-founded fear in spite of the adverse credibility determination, the IJ ruled that Kuraiev failed to do so, and concluded that Kuraiev was not eligible for asylum. The IJ also concluded that Kuraiev failed to carry his burden of proof as to withholding of removal and failed to establish that he was eligible for CAT relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Kuraiev’s appeal, ruling that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was proper and that the denial of Kuraiev’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal based on past persecution was correct. The BIA concluded that all other issues were waived on appeal. 1 Kuraiev’s nationality argument and his particular social group argument are both based on his identity as a Cossack. 2 In his petition to this court, Kuraiev argues that: 1) the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence because the IJ failed to question him about all of the perceived inconsistences and omissions that the adverse credibility determination was based upon; and 2) the BIA’s waiver rulings were erroneous because the improper adverse credibility determination affected the analysis of each of Kuraiev’s requests for relief. We review an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence, and, in doing so, we consider the reasons cited in the BIA’s decision, as well as the reasons in the IJ’s decision that support the reasons cited by the BIA. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). The BIA’s ruling that an issue was …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals