Belinski v. Belinski, 06-73761

• Decision Date: 22 July 2010
• Docket Number: Agency No. A078-668-646,Agency No. A078-668-644,Agency No. A078-668-647,Agency No. A078-668-648,Agency No. A078-668-645,No. 06-73761,Agency No. A078-668-643,Agency No. A078-668-649,06-73761
• Parties: VLADIMIR B. BELINSKI; SVETLANA B. BELINSKI; ANGELINA v. BELINSKI; VLADIMIR v. BELINSKI; YULIA v. BELINSKI; DIANNA v. BELINSKI; DENNIS v. BELINSKI, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

VLADIMIR B. BELINSKI; SVETLANA B. BELINSKI; ANGELINA v.
BELINSKI; VLADIMIR v. BELINSKI; YULIA v. BELINSKI; DIANNA v.
BELINSKI; DENNIS v. BELINSKI, Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73761
Agency No. A078-668-643
Agency No. A078-668-644
Agency No. A078-668-645
Agency No. A078-668-646
Agency No. A078-668-647
Agency No. A078-668-648
Agency No. A078-668-649

United States Court Of Appeals
For The Ninth Circuit

FILED: July 22. 2010
Submitted July 15, 2010^**

MEMORANDUM^*

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

Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Vladimir B. Belinski, his wife, Svetlana Belinski, and their children, Angelina Belinski, Vladimir V. Belinski, Yulia Belinski, and Dennis Belinski

(collectively "the Belinskis") are natives and citizens of Tajikistan and citizens of Israel. Their youngest child, Dianna Belinski, is a native and citizen of Canada. The Belinskis appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the Belinskis' petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that the Belinskis did not establish that the Israeli government was unable or unwilling to control their alleged persecutors. See Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 567 F.3d 437, 442 (9th Cir. 2009), amended by 591 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2009). We therefore deny the Belinskis' petition for review because the IJ's decision, affirmed without opinion by the Board of Immigration Appeals, is supported by substantial evidence.

PETITION DENIED.

--------

Notes:

^*. 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).

--------