FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 11 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAUHENIYA LAHODA; IVAN No. 10-73660
SUSLOV,
Agency Nos. A088-099-856
Petitioners, A088-099-857
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 8, 2014**
Before: THOMAS, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Yauheniya Lahoda, a native and citizen of Belarus, and Ivan Suslov, a native
and citizen of Russia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lahoda’s application for asylum. Because Lahoda’s Application for Asylum was
filed after March 11, 2005, we apply the standards set forth in the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lahoda was not
credible as to the 2006 incident. Lahoda represented that she prepared the entire
declaration filed in support of her application herself, when in fact she had copied
her description of the 2006 incident from an internet article about the protests.
Lahoda’s plagiarism and lack of any corroborative evidence are sufficient evidence
to support the negative credibility finding. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
finding reasonable under totality of circumstances). Further, Lahoda’s
explanations for the copying do not compel an opposite result. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Lahoda claims that she copied the article
because she was not comfortable speaking English and sought a more compelling
account of the 2006 incident. Lahoda, however, offers no explanation as to why
she felt compelled to copy this particular section, despite having prepared a ten
page declaration by herself in English. These facts do not make out one of “the
most extraordinary circumstances [that] will justify overturning an adverse
credibility determination.” Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th Cir.
2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Lahoda
did not establish past persecution based on the 2003 and 2007 incidents. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2006) (past persecution not compelled
based on single detention and beating that did not require medical treatment);
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner did not show
harm was “part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner himself
(internal quotations marks omitted)). Further, as Lahoda has not established past
persecution, she is not entitled to a presumption of future persecution. See Molina-
Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Lahoda’s evidence was insufficient to show a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of her political opinion. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear “too speculative” under circumstances of case);
Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991) (harm not closely
tied to petitioner); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (fear of
persecution “is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members
continue to live in the country without incident”). Accordingly, Lahoda’s asylum
claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.