Armen Soghbatyan v. Loretta E. Lynch

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ARMEN SOGHBATYAN; SHUSHAN No. 13-70673
NERSISYAN,
Agency Nos. A088-115-405
Petitioners, A088-115-406
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Armen Soghbatyan and Shushan Nersisyan, natives and citizens of Armenia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Soghbatyan’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying
the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID
Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Soghbatyan’s testimony and visa documents
regarding his work history. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). The record does not support
Soghbatyan’s contention that the IJ did not consider his explanations, and
Soghbatyan’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary
conclusion, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, Soghbatyan’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Soghbatyan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same
evidence the BIA found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence
that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
2 13-70673
or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Armenia. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70673