FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAMAZ IAZGULYAN, No. 11-70028
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-306-524
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Tamaz Iazgulyan, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions pro se 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
*
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. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub
v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency found Iazgulyan not credible because his testimony omitted the
most significant incident of harm he alleged in his supporting declarations, namely,
his kidnaping and beating by Georgian nationalists, and he failed to explain the
omission. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004) (adverse
credibility finding supported by key omissions that go to the heart of the claim);
see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material
alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an
adverse credibility finding.”); cf. Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1013-14 (9th
Cir. 1998) (adverse credibility finding not supported where BIA did not address
applicant’s explanation for omission). In the absence of credible testimony,
Iazgulyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Iazgulyan’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements
found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is
2 11-70028
more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Georgia. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-70028