Kolodzeva v. Mukasey
This text of 308 F. App'x 142 (Kolodzeva v. Mukasey) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Tatiana Vladimirovna Kolodzeva, native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that, taking Kolodzeva’s testimony as true, she failed meet her burden of establishing past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Kolodzeva’s asylum claim fails.
Because Kolodzeva did not establish asylum eligibility, it necessarily follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
308 F. App'x 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kolodzeva-v-mukasey-ca9-2009.