Harutyunyan v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARINE HARUTYUNYAN, No. 07-75083
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-533-041
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Karine Harutyunyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to remand
and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying applications
*
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).
Page 2
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial
of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095,
1098 (9th Cir. 2005), and findings of fact for substantial evidence, Ali v. Holder, 637
F.3d 1025, 1028–29 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s denial of relief.
Harutyunyan’s testimony was inconsistent in many important respects with other
evidence, including her prior statements. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973
(9th Cir. 2011) (“Material alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution are
sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding.”). Harutyunyan lacked basic
knowledge about the beliefs and activities of the organization she was allegedly
persecuted for assisting. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004).
And when asked to explain inconsistencies and to provide persuasive corroboration
of her story, Harutyunyan failed to do so. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1091–92
(9th Cir. 2000).
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Harutyunyan’s motion to
remand for consideration of evidence her attorney allegedly failed to present. Even
Page 3
assuming that Harutyunyan’s failure to comply with the requirements of Matter of
Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), was excusable, she has not demonstrated
prejudice from her counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. See Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 899–900 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.