FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARINE KARAPETYAN; ARTUR No. 05-77339
AVETISYAN; HAYKANUSH
AVETISYAN, Agency Nos. A075-675-360
A075-675-328
Petitioners, A078-112-015
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 3, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, CLIFTON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Karine Karapetyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
(“CAT”), on the basis of an adverse credibility determination. We deny her
petition for review.
“We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence and
reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Singh v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006). To support an adverse credibility finding, the
IJ “must have a legitimate articulable basis to question the petitioner’s credibility,
and must offer a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” Hartooni v. INS,
21 F.3d 336, 342 (9th Cir. 1994). “[T]estimony that is implausible in light of the
background evidence can support an adverse credibility finding.” Jibril v.
Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation, emphasis, and internal
quotation marks omitted).
The IJ described several implausibilities in determining that Karapetyan’s
testimony was not credible. Karapetyan testified that she was persecuted for trying
to reveal a secret document about the assassinations of high-ranking government
officials and the conspiracy to mask these murders as suicides. The IJ found that
her testimony about her behavior concerning the document was implausible and
inconsistent. First, he pointed to Karapetyan’s testimony that after being
imprisoned, beaten, and hospitalized for sending a letter about the conspiracy to the
prosecutor, she wrote again to the same prosecutor upon her release from the
2
hospital. Karapetyan acknowledged that it must have been the prosecutor who
caused her to be arrested and beaten, but she thought that he would not take a
personal interest in her case and would give her second letter to another prosecutor.
Second, the IJ explained that her failure to make copies of the document was
inconsistent with her stated desire to bring the conspiracy to light. Karapetyan
testified that she failed to bring copies of the report to a women’s meeting of her
political party at which she denounced the leader of the party as the leader of the
assassination ring. The IJ found it implausible that she would not bring any
evidence to support her dramatic claim against the leader of the party and
incredible that, as an executive secretary responsible for archiving documents, she
would not understand the value of corroborating her claims with copies of the
document. Third, the IJ noted that even though Karapetyan testified that she
stayed in Armenia (after her husband fled the country) to bring the alleged leader
of the conspiracy to justice, she did not know any information about the
subsequent charges against the leader. Because of these implausibilities in
Karapetyan’s testimony, the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by
substantial evidence.
In addition, because Karapetyan failed to meet her burden of demonstrating
that the record compels the conclusion that her claim is credible, she also failed to
3
meet her burden that she qualifies for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Likewise, because Karapetyan’s
CAT claim is based on the same allegations that supported her asylum claim, the
IJ’s adverse credibility determination validly applied to her CAT claim. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[Petitioner] points to no other
evidence that he could claim the BIA should have considered in making its
determination under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, because we
affirm the BIA’s determination that [petitioner] . . . [was] not credible, we must
similarly affirm the rejection of [petitioner]’s claim under the Convention Against
Torture.”). We deny her petition for review.
We decline to reach her ineffective assistance of counsel argument because
she raised this argument for the first time on appeal. See Martinez-Zelaya v. INS,
841 F.2d 294, 296 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Our review does not extend to what
[petitioner] should have argued to the BIA. Instead, our review is confined to the
BIA’s decision and the bases upon which the BIA relied.”).
We also deny Karapetyan’s motion to submit evidence into the record.
DENIED.
4