Anahit Simonyan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ANAHIT SIMONYAN, No. 09-70877
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-156-803
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 17, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and KENDALL, District
Judge.***
Anahit Simonyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order dismissing her appeal from
*
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).
***
The Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination to dismiss the
petition based on a finding of adverse credibility. Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178,
1180 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility findings reviewed for substantial
evidence); Hosseini v. Gonzalez, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006) (review is
limited to the BIA decision when the BIA conducted its own review of the
evidence and law, except to the extent that the IJ opinion is expressly adopted).
We are bound to uphold a negative credibility determination where the
inconsistencies that are identified go to the “heart” of the asylum claim. See Wang
v. I.N.S., 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). An inconsistency goes to the “heart
of a claim if it concerns events central to petitioner’s version of why he was
persecuted and fled.” Singh v. Gonzalez, 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2006). A
single but significant inconsistency affecting the heart of a claim is sufficient to
make a negative credibility finding; however, even minor inconsistencies taken as
a whole can be considered if they deprive the totality of the evidence of a “ring of
truth.” See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2011); Kaur v.
Gonzalez, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005).
2
The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s findings that Simonyan
testified inconsistently throughout both her written declaration and her oral
testimony before the IJ, and that the inconsistencies went to the heart of her claims
and undermined her credibility. Simonyan applied for asylum based on her
environmental activism in Armenia and persecution for that activism. The agency
focused on several independent inconsistencies that the agency concluded
undermined her credibility, including Simonyan’s lack of knowledge about
seemingly obvious details about the political environment in Armenia in which she
claimed to be immersed, inconsistent statements regarding her sister’s exposure to
radiation, and material omissions in the dates of her schooling when she alleged
that she had conducted many of the political demonstrations that drew persecution
from authorities while enrolled in those schools.
The BIA also properly affirmed the IJ’s recognition of the absence of
corroborating documentation to support Simonyan’s claim as a further basis to
conclude that Simonyan could not meet her burden of proof for her asylum claim.
An absence of corroborating documentation may be taken into account when the
applicant’s testimony has been found less than credible. See Singh v. Gonzalez,
491 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 2007) (reciting pre-REAL ID Act standard regarding
corroborating documentation).
3
The absence of credible testimony, with no corroborating documentation, is
fatal to Simonyan’s claim of asylum.1
PETITION DENIED.
1
Because Simonyan did not raise her withholding-of-removal and CAT
claims in her opening brief, we deem those issues waived. Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1091
n.3.
4