Antonov v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Antonov v. Gonzales

158 F. App'x 59

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 2005

DocketNo. 04-76264

StatusPublished

This text of 158 F. App'x 59 (Antonov v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antonov v. Gonzales, 158 F. App'x 59 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Roman Yuryevich Antonov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order adopting and affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000), we deny the petition for review.

The IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for finding Antonov not credible. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, Antonov has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Antonov’s CAT claim fads because it is based on the same evidence that the IJ concluded was incredible. See id. at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Roman Yuryevich Antonov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order adopting and affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000), we deny the petition for review.

The IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for finding Antonov not credible. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, Antonov has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Antonov’s CAT claim fads because it is based on the same evidence that the IJ concluded was incredible. See id. at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F. App'x 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonov-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack