NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MAYRANUSH ABRAHAMYAN, No. 10-71523
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-675-246
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 3, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, FISHER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Mayranush Abrahamyan petitions for review of the denial of her application
for asylum, withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition.
*
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).
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the agency’s adverse
credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The IJ identified several specific inconsistencies in
Abrahamyan’s account, most notably with respect to whether her neighbors
witnessed her being taken from her home. The IJ found that Abrahamyan
repeatedly became evasive and provided non-responsive or implausible answers
when asked to explain this and other inconsistencies. These consistency and
demeanor findings are supported by record. Moreover, because the details,
specificity and plausibility of Abrahamyan’s testimony as a whole were
insufficient to overcome these inconsistencies and her evasive explanations,
substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Abrahamyan’s claim was left
without the requisite ring of truth. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-44
(9th Cir. 2010).
Abrahamyan does not dispute that if the agency properly discounted her
testimony, she did not carry her burden of demonstrating her entitlement to
asylum. She also did not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). She waived
any challenge to the denial of her application for CAT relief by failing to raise it in
her opening brief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).
2
We decline to consider the other grounds for denying the petition raised by the
government.
DENIED.
3