NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIAM MELKONYAN, No. 14-73669
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-591-026
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mariam Melkonyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). The agency’s determination that an applicant
knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum is reviewed de novo for
compliance with the procedural framework set forth by the BIA, Kulakchyan v.
Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013), and we review de novo due process
claims, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination, based on Melkonyan’s demeanor as described by the IJ, see Huang
v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 2014) (giving special deference to
findings based on demeanor), and her failure to corroborate her husband’s death
and that foul play was involved, see Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1043-44
(9th Cir. 2016) (explaining procedural requirements for an adverse credibility
determination to be supported by lack of corroboration). The agency did not err in
rejecting Melkonyan’s explanations for her failure to corroborate. See Don v.
Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency does not abuse its discretion
“by failing to interpret the evidence in the manner advocated by [petitioner].”). In
the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Melkonyan’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
2 14-73669
Melkonyan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Melkonyan does not point to any other evidence in
the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Armenia.
See id. at 1156-57.
We reject Melkonyan’s contention that the IJ violated her due process rights.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on
a due process claim).
Finally, the agency did not err in finding Melkonyan filed a frivolous asylum
application where it complied with the procedural requirements of In re Y- L-, 24 I.
& N. Dec. 151, 151-52 (BIA 2007). Melkonyan does not argue that she did not
receive adequate notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application, or
that the IJ failed to make an explicit finding that she knowingly filed a frivolous
asylum application. A preponderance of the evidence supports the IJ’s
determination that Melkonyan knowingly filed a frivolous application. See Ahir v.
Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, Melkonyan was given
“ample opportunity . . . to address and account for any deliberate, material
fabrications[.]” See id. at 919 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We
reject Melkonyan’s contention that the BIA erred in its analysis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73669