FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 7 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENRIK BAGHRAMYAN, No. 15-71159
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-696-998
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 5, 2020**
Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Henrik Baghramyan seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ ("BIA") final order affirming the immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of his
requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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 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).
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard). Petitioner testified
inconsistently about whether he made a copy of the video and about whether he
gave a copy of the video to the police. He testified inconsistently about how many
times police detained him and when his arrests occurred. Petitioner premises his
claims for relief on allegations that police detained and abused him and threatened
his life for exposing an incident of sexual misconduct by a general’s father. Thus,
his inconsistent testimony concerned not minor details but, instead, issues that are
central to his claims. And, although in cases governed by the REAL ID Act,
"inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an
inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight." Id. at
1046–47. Additionally, the IJ and BIA permissibly considered Petitioner’s 2005
visa fraud. See Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding
that, even under pre-REAL ID Act standards, "[t]he law of this circuit permits the
use of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus in the immigration context").
Petitioner had notice and an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies. See
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1092 n.14 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that the agency
must advise a petitioner that his credibility is questionable and give him an
2
opportunity to explain before relying on an inconsistency to support an adverse
credibility determination). Petitioner was asked about the visa fraud and
discrepancies in his testimony on cross-examination and by the IJ. The BIA and IJ
properly considered Petitioner’s explanations before making their decisions. Rizk
v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
We must uphold an adverse credibility determination "so long as even one
basis is supported by substantial evidence." Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1088. Petitioner
failed to establish that "any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled" to
disagree with the adverse credibility determination premised on Petitioner’s
inconsistent testimony and visa fraud. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Because Petitioner thus
failed to meet his burden of proving that he suffered past persecution or that there
is a clear probability of future persecution, we deny the petition as to Petitioner’s
claims for asylum and withholding of removal.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner
did not demonstrate eligibility for CAT relief. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048
(stating standard of review and CAT standard). Petitioner’s CAT claim was
premised "on the same statements . . . that the BIA determined to be not credible."
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA properly
3
considered the record evidence independent of Petitioner’s discredited testimony
and concluded that the affidavits and country conditions report were not sufficient
to establish that Petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured if removed. Id.
The country conditions report corroborates only that police in Armenia sometimes
engage in torture but not that Petitioner specifically would be targeted. Thus, the
adverse credibility finding also supports denial of CAT relief. Shrestha, 590 F.3d
at 1049.
PETITION DENIED.
4
Henrik Baghramyan v. William Barr
Combined Opinion