Artashes Petrosyan v. Loretta E. Lynch , 671 F. App'x 950 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 22 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTASHES PETROSYAN, No. 10-71729
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-445-924
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 22, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
1. We deny Petrosyan’s petition for review of the agency’s denial of his
applications for asylum and withholding of removal because the agency’s adverse
credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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
590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). In his declaration, Petrosyan described his
personal experience using similar or identical language to portions of an earlier
published Human Rights Watch article. Petrosyan attributes the similarity to the
fact that many people were at the described rally. But this doesn’t address why his
account of the events repeats sentences and details from the Human Rights Watch
article verbatim. Absent a plausible explanation, the agency reasonably concluded
that Petrosyan’s account of the alleged persecution was not genuine.
The agency’s adverse credibility finding is further supported by the
discrepancies between Petrosyan’s testimony and his aunt’s. See 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). His aunt failed to corroborate Petrosyan’s testimony that he
had been arrested in Armenia. Instead, she testified that she didn’t know anyone in
the family, other than Petrosyan’s father, who had been arrested in Armenia. She
also testified that she thought Petrosyan’s father was still in Armenia when
Petrosyan departed Armenia for the United States, even though Petrosyan testified
that his father left Armenia before he did.
2. Petrosyan waived his claim for protection under the Convention Against
Torture by failing to raise it in his opening brief. See Balser v. Dep’t. of Justice,
327 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir. 2003). But even if it wasn’t waived, this claim would
page 3
fail because other than his own incredible testimony, Petrosyan doesn’t point to
any evidence that compels us to conclude that it’s more likely than not that he
would be tortured if returned to Armenia.
DENIED.