Nordikyan v. Holder , 486 F. App'x 686 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARKIS NORDIKYAN, No. 07-75032
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-998-592
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 5, 2012 **
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Sarkis Nordikyan appeals from the IJ and BIA’s denial of his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We deny his petition.
*
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).
1
The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
evidence. Nordikyan rested his first asylum application on fear of future
persecution on account of his membership in a political party, but later testified
that he feared persecution on account of being a Jehovah’s Witness and that he had
not been a member of any political party. Although given an opportunity to
explain this inconsistency, which went to the heart of his asylum claim, Nordikyan
failed to do so. Because at least “‘one of the identified grounds is supported by
substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [the alien’s] claim of persecution,’”
we must uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Rizk v. Holder, 629
F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Wang v. INS, 352
F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003)).
The IJ’s determination that Nordikyan lacked a well-founded fear of future
persecution was also supported by substantial evidence, including the State
Department Country Report, which is “‘perhaps the best resource for information
on political situations in foreign nations,’” Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285
(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1995)), and
other reports documenting that Jehovah’s Witnesses face some discrimination, but
not persecution, in Armenia, cf. Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
2
banc). The one newspaper article on which Nordikyan relies does not undercut this
evidence.
Both the IJ and the BIA expressly considered and rejected Nordikyan’s
request for protection under CAT. Accordingly, Nordikyan’s due process claim is
not well taken.
PETITION DENIED.
3