Tatiana Zlobina v. Loretta E. Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A201-098-037 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999775355].. [15-1942]

Appeal: 15-1942

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1942

TATIANA ZLOBINA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

March 8, 2016

Decided:

March 16, 2016

Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander J. Segal, THE LAW OFFICES OF GRINBERG & SEGAL,
P.L.L.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R.
Goad, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation
Counsel,
Office
of
Immigration
Litigation,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1942

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Tatiana Zlobina, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions
for

review

of

an

order

of

the

Board

of

Immigration

Appeals

(Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ)
order

denying

removal,
(CAT),

and
and

her

applications

protection
finding

application.

under

that

Zlobina

for

the

she

asylum,

withholding

Convention
filed

challenges

a

the

of

Against

Torture

frivolous

asylum

agency’s

adverse

credibility finding and the finding that she filed a frivolous
asylum application.

She also contends that she sustained her

burden of proof and is eligible for withholding of removal and
protection under the CAT.

We deny the petition for review.

Zlobina bears the burden of establishing eligibility for
relief from removal.
Cir. 2013).

Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 927 (4th

To be eligible for asylum, Zlobina must show that

she cannot return to Moldova because she has a well-founded fear
of persecution on account of a protected ground.

Id.

Zlobina,

like all aliens, faces a higher burden of proof to establish her
entitlement to withholding of removal because she must show “a
clear

probability

ground.”

of

persecution

on

account

of

a

protected

Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th Cir. 2011)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Thus, if Zlobina fails to

meet her burden of proof, she is also ineligible for withholding
of removal.

Id.
2

Appeal: 15-1942

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

The scope of our review is narrow.
926.

Hui Pan, 737 F.3d at

We review factual findings for substantial evidence; such

findings are conclusive “unless any reasonable adjudicator would
be

compelled

to

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)
(4th Cir. 2014).
manifestly

conclude

(2012);

to

the

Cordova v.

contrary.”

Holder,

759

8

F.3d

U.S.C.

332,

337

We will affirm so long as the decision “is not

contrary

to

law.”

Hui

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Pan,

737

F.3d

at

926.

We will reverse the Board

only if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.”

INS v.

Elias-Zacarias,

502

U.S.

478,

483-84

(1992); see also Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir.
2002).
The

IJ,

after

“[c]onsidering

the

totality

of

the

circumstances, and all relevant factors,” may make an adverse
credibility

determination

based

on

factors

such

as

the

plausibility of the applicant’s account, the consistency between
the

applicant’s

consistency

of

written
each

such

and

oral

statement,

statements,
the

the

consistency

internal
of

such

statements with other evidence, or any other relevant factor.

8

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2012); Hui Pan, 737 F.3d at 928.

A

credibility determination may rest on any relevant factor, even
one that does not “go[ ] to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
3

Appeal: 15-1942

Doc: 27

The
cherry

Filed: 03/16/2016

credibility
pick

solely

Pg: 4 of 5

provision
facts

“ensures

favoring

that

an

an

adverse

IJ

does

not

credibility

determination while ignoring facts that undermine that result.”
Hui Pan, 737 F.3d at 928 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“When an adverse credibility determination has been made, this
court must assess whether the IJ or [the Board] identified nonspeculative, specific, cogent reasons in support of the adverse
credibility finding.”
marks omitted).

We review an adverse credibility finding for

substantial evidence.
Here,
considered

we
the

that

totality

credibility

further

conclude
by

Id. at 926, 928.

conclude

adverse

supported

Id. (internal alteration and quotation

of

finding

that

the

substantial

the
the
is

Board’s

finding

evidence
not

before

clearly

adverse

An

the

making

erroneous.

credibility

evidence.

that

adverse

IJ
the
We

finding

is

credibility

finding can rest on the determination that the alien submitted a
fraudulent

document

in

support

of

her

asylum

claim.

Borovikova v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 436 F.3d 151, 156-58 (2d
Cir.

2006).

Zlobina

admitted

that

she

submitted

several

fraudulent documents in order to bolster her claims.
Moreover,

we

conclude

that

substantial

evidence

supports

the Board’s finding that the IJ did not err in determining that
Zlobina filed a frivolous asylum application.

See Siddique v.

Mukasey, 547 F.3d 814, 816 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding that whether
4

Appeal: 15-1942

alien

Doc: 27

filed

application

Filed: 03/16/2016

false
is

or

Pg: 5 of 5

fraudulent

finding

of

fact

material

supporting

reviewed

for

asylum

substantial

evidence).

Zlobina’s claims that she did not receive adequate

notice

the

of

application

or

application

are

consequences
of

what

without

of

filing

constituted

merit.

a
a

Finally,

frivolous

asylum

frivolous

asylum

we

conclude

that

substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the IJ
did not err in finding Zlobina ineligible for withholding of
removal or protection under the CAT.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

5