NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
GEVORG BEGLARYAN, No. 06-73315
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-292-564
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 5, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.***
We deny Beglaryan’s petition for review.
1. The inconsistency between Beglaryan’s oral testimony and his written
declaration with regard to his stated political affiliation undermines his credibility.
*
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 Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
This discrepancy, which Beglaryan did not adequately explain, goes to the heart of
Beglaryan’s claim that he suffered persecution as a result of his work to expose
human trafficking with the help of his political party. This unexplained
discrepancy supports the Immigration Judge's (IJ) adverse credibility finding.
2. At his hearing before the IJ, Beglaryan appeared slow to recall a crucial
encounter with the Armenian military, undercutting the plausibility of his
testimony. Only after his counsel’s repeated questioning did Beglaryan finally
recount a dramatic incident involving a TV appearance cut short by military
intervention. This hesitation also casts doubt on Beglaryan’s credibility and
supports the adverse credibility finding.
3. The IJ’s finding that Beglaryan’s testimony conflicted with the State
Department Country Report was not supported by substantial evidence. The
Country Report’s short description of a single attempt by the Armenian
government to prosecute human trafficking offenders does not imply that
Armenian prosecutorial authorities uniformly support efforts to end human
trafficking. Thus the Country Report does not undermine Beglaryan’s testimony.
Given the inconsistency between Beglaryan's oral and written statements of
political party affiliation, as well as the manner in which he surfaced the television
station incident, we conclude that the decision of the Board of Immigration
2
Appeals to affirm the IJ’s denial of relief was supported by substantial evidence.
See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3