FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIRANUSH KAMIKIAN, No. 08-70523
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-650-916
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Siranush Kamikian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief 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 this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “This court reviews factual determinations,
including credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Morgan v.
Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Kamikian testified
inconsistently concerning how her employment ended, and whether Kamikian was
fired or resigned voluntarily goes to the heart of her claim that she was persecuted
on account of her whistle-blower status. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745
(9th Cir. 2004). Kamikian also failed to corroborate her claim with material
evidence that a reasonable trier of fact would not be compelled to conclude was
unavailable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D); Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2000) (“[I]f the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant or does not
know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony can be
fatal to his asylum application.”). Substantial evidence therefore supports the
BIA’s determination that Kamikian did not satisfy her burden of proof for
establishing eligibility for asylum. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1044–45
(9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Kamikian’s asylum claim.
Because Kamikian failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
cannot demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
2 08-70523
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, because Kamikian’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence that
the agency found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is
more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Armenia, her CAT claim
fails. See id. at 1156–57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70523