Karapetyan v. Holder , 386 F. App'x 656 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMVEL KARAPETYAN; FLORA No. 07-74917
HOVSEPYAN,
Agency Nos. A078-366-060
Petitioners, A078-366-061
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
**
Submitted June 29, 2010
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Samvel Karapetyan and his wife, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse
credibility determination, Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Karapetyan’s testimony that he was a member of
the Pentecostal Christian Church and the conflicting certificate he submitted to prove
his membership. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (“We have
held inconsistencies between testimonial and documentary evidence to be proper basis
for an adverse credibility finding.”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
adverse credibility determination based on Karapetyan’s omission in his asylum
application of his alleged escape to Poland for a period of two years, and of the
alleged incident wherein the police pushed his pregnant wife causing the death of his
unborn child. See Kim v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (the
omissions of significant events or dramatic incidents “constitute substantial evidence
to support the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations.”). Additionally, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Karapetyan failed to provide any
evidence corroborating his claim that he was harmed in Armenia. See Sidhu v. INS,
220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (“the applicant’s failure to corroborate his
testimony can be fatal to his asylum application”). In the absence of credible
2
testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Lastly, respondents do not challenge the denial of CAT relief in their opening
brief. Accordingly, they have waived that claim. Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d
1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3