FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIK MANUKYAN, a.k.a. Rafik No. 08-72374
Simonyan,
Agency No. A099-833-038
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: HUG, SKOPIL, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Erik Manukyan (“Manukyan”), a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for
review of a final order of removal. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined that
Manukyan was not credible and denied his requests for political asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirmed
that decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny
the petition in part and dismiss in part.
Manukyan challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility findings. We may reject
such findings, however, only if a “reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added).
Manukyan’s arguments fail to meet that standard.
Manukyan argues that because his account of how he acquired documents he
used to seek admission was possible, the IJ should not have doubted his credibility
because the account was implausible. This argument is without merit. The REAL
ID Act explicitly allows an IJ to consider “the inherent plausibility of the
applicant’s . . . account.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Further, this was not the only reason the IJ gave for finding Manukyan not
credible. Manukyan’s story is full of inconsistencies. While his initial assertion
that he wanted to work is not diametrically opposed to a persecution claim in
general, see Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1075 n.7 (9th Cir. 2004), it is
unrelated to the specific ground of persecution in this case – namely Manukyan’s
involvement with the Armenian Popular Party. There are also inconsistencies in
Manukyan’s story regarding the events that led to his flight from Armenia. At the
-2-
very least, these inconsistencies were enough to allow the IJ to ask for
corroborative evidence. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1044-45 (9th Cir.
2009) (noting the REAL ID Act permits the IJ to require corroborating evidence
that a petitioner either has or can reasonably obtain).
For these reasons, we conclude Manukyan did not establish his eligibility for
asylum. Because Manukyan did not present his claims for CAT relief or
withholding of removal to the BIA, we dismiss these claims for lack of
jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d
967, 972 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting the failure to exhaust administrative remedies
deprives this court of jurisdiction).
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
-3-