NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
LILIA BEDROSIAN, No. 10-72401 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-629-496
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Lilia Bedrosian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
BIA’s order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s ("IJ") decision
denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Reviewing for substantial evidence the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
IJ’s factual findings, including the adverse credibility determination, Cortez-Pineda
v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny in part and dismiss in
part.
1. Substantial evidence, id., supports the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. The forensic expert’s testimony concerning Petitioner’s driver’s
license and political party membership card and the consular investigation report
on Petitioner’s medical records provide substantial evidence to support the finding
that these documents were fraudulent. Because the genuineness of at least one of
the documents proffered by Petitioner went to the heart of Petitioner’s claims about
persecution on account of political opinion and physical mistreatment at the hands
of the authorities, the IJ permissibly deemed Petitioner’s testimony not credible.
Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible
testimony or other credible corroborating evidence, Petitioner fails to meet her
burden to establish her withholding of removal or CAT claim. Farah v. Ashchroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2003). We therefore deny the portions of the
petition concerning withholding of removal and CAT relief.
2. Petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence
that her application for asylum was filed within one year after the date of her
arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Where, as here, the BIA
2
determined that Petitioner failed to meet that burden, we lack jurisdiction to review
that determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); see also Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d
1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that, where our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3) and 1252(a)(2)(D), we are limited to reviewing only those
cases in which the underlying facts are undisputed). We therefore dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction the portion of the petition concerning Petitioner’s application for
asylum.
DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
3