NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISHKHANOHI ZOHRABIAN, AKA No. 16-73810
Eshkhanuhi Zohrabiam; ASATOOR
MERZEKHENIAN, AKA Asatoor Agency Nos. A075-688-901
Mardirosian, A075-688-902
Petitioners, MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: BOGGS,*** BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Ishkhanohi Zohrabian, a.k.a. Eshkhanuhi Zohrabiam, and Asatoor
*
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).
***
The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Merzekhenian, a.k.a. Asatoor Mardirosian, allegedly a married couple and natives
and citizens of Iran, arrived in the United States without inspection and in 2000 filed
in California a joint application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming that, as they were Armenian
Christians, they feared persecution if returned to Iran. After being charged with
removability as aliens present without admission or parole in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), Petitioners, who already admitted to the allegations in their
Notices to Appear, filed in Colorado new applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under CAT.
In the Colorado applications, Petitioners alleged different facts regarding their
identities and past, such as different names, birth details, dates of entry, family status,
details of their lives in Iran, and of alleged persecution. After an Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) found the applicants not credible, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
remanded their case back to California, where another IJ made an adverse credibility
determination based on Petitioners’ multiple filings and inconsistent testimonies,
including their admission of filing counterfeit documents regarding their identities,
births, and religious affiliations. The evidence filed by the government also
contradicted some of Petitioners’ allegations; for example, Petitioners were shown
to have previously filed U.S. non-immigrant visa applications in Armenia. The IJ
found that Petitioners had knowingly filed frivolous asylum applications and denied
2 16-73810
the applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
Petitioners then appealed to the BIA the denial of withholding of removal and
CAT protection, but not the finding of filing frivolous asylum applications. The BIA
remanded the proceedings for further fact-finding. On remand, the IJ found that
additional documentation provided by Petitioners carried little evidentiary value to
show their purported ethnicity and religion, while a new birth certificate further
contradicted the one already in the record. The IJ denied relief on October 1, 2015,
finding that Petitioners neither established their identity as Armenian Christians nor
that they would be more likely than not persecuted or tortured upon removal to Iran.
After the BIA affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge on November 3, 2016,
Petitioners timely filed the present petition for review.
This court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review a timely appeal
from a final order of removal. Abdisalan v. Holder, 774 F.3d 517, 523 (9th Cir. 2014)
(en banc). Denials of withholding of removal and CAT relief are reviewed under the
substantial evidence standard. Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137, 1140 (9th Cir.
2016). “[F]indings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would
be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). In order to
grant a petition for review, we “must determine ‘that the evidence not only supports
[a contrary] conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion’
that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief.” Garcia-Milian
3 16-73810
v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.l (1992)).
Considering Petitioners’ contradictory statements, supporting documentation,
and multiple, inconsistent applications for asylum, substantial evidence supported
the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish they were Iranian Armenians
of Christian faith and thus would not be subject to persecution upon removal to Iran.
See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We . . . will
uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the
record considered as a whole.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Petitioners did
not provide identification documents. The alleged birth certificates of Petitioner
Zohrabian contained contradictory information and unexplained inconsistencies,
such as different dates of baptism and different names of the officiating reverend
and of the godfather. A letter provided by a reverend in California was appropriately
given little weight because it was only two sentences long and provided no
information about the extent of Petitioners’ involvement in the church. The
declaration of an Iranian national in support of Petitioner Zohrabian’s identity did
not provide any information about her faith.
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Petitioners are
ineligible for CAT protection. The two reports submitted by Petitioners do not
4 16-73810
establish that it is more likely than not they will be tortured if removed to Iran, and
the evidence fails to compel a different result. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
Thus, we DENY THE PETITION FOR REVIEW.
5 16-73810