Lusine Melik Ohanyan v. Loretta E. Lynch , 606 F. App'x 392 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUSINE MELIK OHANYAN; No. 13-71988
ANDRANIK KALANTARYAN,
Agency Nos. A088-090-049
Petitioners, A088-090-050
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Lusine Melik Ohanyan and Andranik Kalantaryan, natives and citizens of
Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications 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.
As an initial matter, the record does not compel the conclusion that
petitioners have established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse their
untimely asylum applications. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Toj-
Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Thus, we
deny the petition as to petitioners’ asylum claims.
With regard to Melik Ohanyan’s withholding of removal claim, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on
inconsistencies between Melik Ohanyan’s declaration and testimony regarding her
political activities and interactions with her political party members. See Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the
“totality of circumstances”). Melik Ohanyan’s explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the
absence of credible testimony, Melik Ohanyan’s withholding of removal claim
fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 13-71988
Melik Ohanyan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence
the BIA found not credible, and she does not point to any other evidence that
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Armenia. See Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1048-49.
As to Kalantaryan’s withholding of removal claim, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s determination that, even if credible, Kalantaryan failed to
establish his experiences in Armenia constituted past persecution. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d
336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found
[these incidents constituted] past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder
would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). Further, the record does not
compel the conclusion that Kalantaryan has a clear probability of future harm. See
Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1185. Thus, Kalantaryan’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Kalantaryan’s
CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Armenia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-71988