FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SENIK SARGSYAN, a.k.a. Arthur No. 08-71400
Galikyan,
Agency No. A095-721-745
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Senik Sargsyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency found Sargsyan not credible for several reasons, including
inconsistent testimony regarding whether the military prosecutors pointed a gun at
his head during his interview, inconsistent testimony regarding whether the police
were prosecuting or covering up the murder, and an omission from Sargsyan’s
statement to the asylum officer of his kidnaping and beating at the construction
site. The agency rejected Sargsyan’s explanations for these inconsistencies and
omission. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”); see also
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding agency finding
that explanations were insufficient). In the absence of credible testimony,
Sargsyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Sargsyan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible, and he does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than
2 08-71400
not that he would be tortured if returned to Armenia, his CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156–57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71400