NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 08 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EDVARD ROMANOS YERITSYAN, No. 09-73108
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-475-049
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Edvard Romanos Yeritsyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal
from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for
review.
Yeritsyan submitted his asylum application on June 26, 2007. Since the
application was filed on or after May 11, 2005, it is governed by the provisions of
the REAL ID Act. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of relief on adverse
credibility grounds based on discrepancies between Yeritsyan’s testimony, his
Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) (I-129F), his nonimmigrant visa application, and his
asylum application.
In particular, Yeritsyan’s testimony conflicts with his immigration
applications regarding the identity of his employer in December 2006. Yeritsyan
testified at his December 2007 merits hearing that by January 6, 2006, he was no
longer working at Shirak Ltd.: “I was actually not working. [Shirak] . . . was
close[d] . . . and we couldn’t work.” This conflicts with his nonimmigrant visa
application, which states that as of December 2006 he was still employed by Shirak
Ltd. in Gyumri, Armenia. Yeritsyan’s asylum application states that he was
employed by the Kentron television station in Yerevan, Armenia, in December
2006, and his cousin’s declaration also states that Yeritsyan worked at the
television station. The IJ provided Yeritsyan several opportunities to explain the
-2-
inconsistencies between his testimony and his visa documents regarding his
employment history and prior arrests, yet Yeritsyan failed to resolve where he was
employed in December 2006. The discrepancies regarding his employment cast
doubt on his credibility because Yeritsyan alleges that his final arrest and detention
was due to his complaint against his employer at Kentron television station, a
company allegedly sympathetic to the ruling party in Armenia.
The BIA’s assessment that Yertisyan lacked a genuine relationship with his
putative fiancée is also supported by substantial evidence. The BIA noted that
Yeritsyan had limited interactions with his putative fiancée, which amounted to
three days in Armenia during their first meeting, one day in Moscow about a year
later, and brief internet phone calls in 2005 and 2006. According to Yeritsyan’s
I-129F Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) signed in July 2006, his putative fiancée
submitted and was denied an initial fiancée petition within the first two months of
having known Yeritsyan. Yeritsyan also admitted that he never saw or lived with
his fiancée in the United States and never married her.
The inconsistencies and lack of detail in Yertisyan’s various petitions for
relief provide substantial evidence to support the BIA’s decision that Yertisyan
was not credible. The BIA’s reasons are “specific and cogent,” and the adverse
-3-
credibility determination is “reasonable” under the totality of the circumstances.
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048.
Because his testimony is not credible, Yeritsyan’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003). Because there is no evidence in the record that compels a finding that it is
more likely than not that he would be tortured at the direction of or with the
consent or acquiescence of the Armenian government, his CAT claim also fails.
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.18(a)(1), (7).
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the petition for review.
-4-