Anna Khachatryan v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNA KHACHATRYAN; et al., No. 20-73291
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A095-758-536
A095-758-537
v. A095-758-538
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 10, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District
Judge.
Anna Khachatryan and her children, as derivative beneficiaries, petition for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the
*
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).
***
The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ did not
clearly err in making an adverse credibility determination. See Yali Wang v.
Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). The IJ correctly observed that
Khachatryan’s testimony in the removal hearing that she “never intended to use a
false visa” directly contradicted her colloquy in connection with her guilty plea to
possession of a false identification document used to enter this country, and that
Khachatryan therefore made a deliberate choice in one of the proceedings not to be
truthful under oath. Except in circumstances not relevant here, deliberate deception
“always counts as substantial evidence supporting an adverse credibility finding.”
Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Rojas Alvarado v.
Barr, 830 F. App’x 246, 247 (9th Cir. 2020).
2. In the absence of her rejected testimony, Khachatryan did not satisfy
her burden to show a reasonable possibility of persecution or a likelihood of torture
if removed to Armenia. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011);
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION DENIED.
2