NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED NOV 15 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IRINA ANATOLEVNA KOCHETKOVA, No. 16-73536 MARINA MOCHALOVA, and POLINA MOCHALOVA, Agency Nos. A205-176-867 A205-176-869 Petitioners, A205-176-870 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 7, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: FARRIS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and KENDALL,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. Irina Kochetkova, Marina Mochalova, and Polina Mochalova,1 natives and citizens of Russia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence and apply the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Id. at 1039-41. The BIA’s determination is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Given the “healthy measure of deference to agency credibility 1 Marina and Polina Mochalova are Kochetkova’s children and are included as derivative beneficiaries of Kochetkova’s application for relief. They did not testify in support of their claims, relying solely on the lead petitioner. This disposition therefore focuses on Kochetkova’s testimony. 2 determinations” that the REAL ID Act requires, Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1041, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. In dismissing Kochetkova’s appeal, the BIA cited multiple aspects of Kochetkova’s testimony and the record that were inconsistent and inherently implausible. Taken together, these inconsistencies and inherently implausible aspects support an adverse credibility determination. First, Kochetkova and her now ex-husband voluntarily returned to Russia twice after trips to the United States in 2010 and 2011, years after local police and government officials began taking retaliatory actions against Kochetkova and her ex-husband for their support of a political party that opposed United Russia. Kochetkova did not apply for asylum during either trip to the United States. The BIA found that voluntary return to Russia undermined Kochetkova’s credibility. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals