FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YULIA VALERIEVNA No. 09-72099
TIKHOMIROVA,
Agency No. A096-061-196
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Yulia Valerievna Tikhomirova, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v.
INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Tikhomirova’s nonviolent
encounter with a police officer trying to fabricate a criminal charge against her
father does not rise to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336,
339-40 (9th Cir. 1995) (minor physical abuse during a single detention did not
compel finding of past persecution); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th
Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and one beating unconnected with any particular
threat did not compel finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also
supports the IJ’s finding that Tikhomirova failed to established a well-founded fear
of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution too speculative); see also Hakeem v. INS, 273
F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is
weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live
in the country without incident.”). Accordingly, Tikhomirova’s asylum claim fails.
2 09-72099
Because Tikhomirova failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Further, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because
Tikhomirova failed to show that it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Russia. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, because Tikhomirova was given a full and fair hearing on her claims
and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, we reject her due process claims.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on
a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-72099