Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 15-1942
TATIANA ZLOBINA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Submitted:
March 8, 2016
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Tatiana Zlobina, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions
for
review
of
an
order
of
the
Board
of
Immigration
Appeals
denying
removal,
(CAT),
and
and
her
applications
protection
finding
application.
under
that
Zlobina
for
the
she
asylum,
withholding
Convention
filed
challenges
the
of
Against
Torture
frivolous
asylum
agencys
adverse
Id.
Zlobina,
probability
ground.
of
persecution
on
account
of
protected
Id.
2
compelled
to
1252(b)(4)(B)
(4th Cir. 2014).
manifestly
conclude
(2012);
to
the
Cordova v.
contrary.
Holder,
759
F.3d
U.S.C.
332,
337
contrary
to
law.
Hui
Pan,
737
F.3d
at
926.
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
determination
based
on
factors
such
as
the
applicants
consistency
of
written
each
such
and
oral
statement,
statements,
the
the
consistency
internal
of
such
The
cherry
credibility
pick
solely
provision
facts
ensures
favoring
that
an
an
adverse
IJ
does
not
credibility
substantial evidence.
Here,
considered
we
the
that
totality
credibility
further
conclude
by
conclude
adverse
supported
of
finding
that
the
substantial
the
the
is
Boards
finding
evidence
not
before
clearly
adverse
An
the
making
erroneous.
credibility
evidence.
that
adverse
IJ
the
We
finding
is
credibility
document
in
support
of
her
asylum
claim.
2006).
Zlobina
admitted
that
she
submitted
several
we
conclude
that
substantial
evidence
supports
the Boards 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
alien
filed
application
false
is
or
fraudulent
finding
of
fact
material
supporting
reviewed
for
asylum
substantial
evidence).
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
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and