NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
VARDAN ADAMYAN, No. 06-75169
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-701-063
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Vardan Adamyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
*
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).
KN/Research
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), and
we review de novo constitutional claims, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274-
75 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that there were material
inconsistencies and omissions between Adamyan’s testimony and asylum
application regarding when, why, and where the police arrested him. See Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An adverse credibility ruling will be
upheld so long as identified inconsistencies go to the heart of [the] asylum claim.”)
(citation and internal quotation omitted); Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245,
1254 (9th Cir. 2003). In the absence of credible testimony, Adamyan failed to
establish he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Adamyan failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured in
Armenia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, we deny Adamyan’s due process contention because he failed to
demonstrate prejudice in the IJ’s handling of the hearing. See Ortiz v. INS, 179
KN/Research 2 06-75169
F.3d 1148, 1153, (9th Cir. 1999) (due process challenges require a showing of
prejudice to succeed).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
KN/Research 3 06-75169