Ruvim Trachik v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUVIM TRACHIK,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71879
Agency No. A071-388-873
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ruvim Trachick, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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).
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71879
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims and review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d
1195, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Trachick’s contentions that the IJ violated his due process rights.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error
and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if
Trachick’s conviction was not a particularly serious crime, he failed to establish it
is more likely than not his life or freedom would be threatened in Ukraine. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). The record does not
support Trachick’s contentions that the IJ ignored evidence, or the relationship
between his religion and Ukraine’s draft requirement. Thus, Trachick’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Trachick failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Ukraine. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --