RUVIM TRACHIK V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71879 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUVIM TRACHIK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-71879 Petitioner, Agency No. A071-388-873 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. 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). 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 14-71879
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
