Temur Rustamov v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TEMUR RUSTAMOV,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70148
Agency No. A215-639-487
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Temur Rustamov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-70148
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-
40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Rustamov’s failure to disclose prior arrests and implausible testimony as
to his ability to obtain a passport and travel freely. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); see
also Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 836 (9th Cir. 2021) (testimony that is
implausible in light of country condition reports may support an adverse credibility
finding); Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2020) (omissions must be
weighed in light of the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors).
Rustamov’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject as unsupported by the record
Rustamov’s contentions that the IJ failed to consider his explanations or otherwise
erred in the credibility analysis. Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this
case, Rustamov’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-70148
We do not reach Rustamov’s contentions concerning the serious non-
political crime bar. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010)
(the court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
In his opening brief, Rustamov does not contend that the BIA erred in
finding he waived any challenge to the to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner
waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in his opening brief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --