FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 06 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARINE MOVSESYAN, No. 10-73652
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-294-250
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 3, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District
Judge.**
Karine Movsesyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) opinion denying Movsesyan asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Underlying the Board’s decision
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
was the determination that Movsesyan did not testify credibly about her history of
whistle blowing, her ties to Arkady Vardanian, the leader of an opposition political
party, and her abuse and persecution by the Armenian government. Because we
conclude that the Board’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial
evidence, we deny the petition.
Movsesyan argues in part that the adverse credibility finding was
unwarranted because (1) the Board erroneously relied on a State Department
consular report and a forensic report from ICE to conclude that she had submitted
fraudulent documents in support of her application and (2) the Board failed to
consider Movsesyan’s psychologist’s testimony. We do not have jurisdiction to
consider these issues. Movsesyan raised these issues for the first time in her
motion to reopen under the Board’s sua sponte authority, and the Board denied that
motion. That was entirely within the Board’s discretion. See Ekimian v. INS, 303
F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002) (interpreting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)’s identical
predecessor regulation). As a result, the Board’s exercise of its unfettered
discretion is nonjusticiable. Id.; Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24
(9th Cir. 2011) (reaffirming Ekimian).
At least four pieces of evidence support the adverse credibility finding: (1)
the fraudulent medical histories and police reports Movsesyan submitted; (2) the
2
discrepancies surrounding the name of the pharmacy and her employment history
there; (3) Movsesyan’s inconsistent description of her travels from Armenia; and
(4) Movsesyan’s shifting account of the Armenian National Security Ministry
summons. Even if we were to consider and agree with Movsesyan’s challenge to
the State Department consular report and the ICE forensic report, which we do not,
we would still be “bound to accept the negative credibility finding,” because more
than “one of the identified grounds underlying [the Board’s] negative credibility
finding is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [Movsesyan’s]
claims.” Khadka v. Holder, 618 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010).
Petition Denied.
3