FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUZANNA KARAPETYAN, No. 07-74961
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-534-677
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of
The Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 8, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY, District
Judge.**
Petitioner Ruzanna Karapetyan (“Karapetyan”), a native of Armenia, challenges
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility determination and corresponding denial of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, District Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Karapetyan’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). This court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. In pre-
REAL ID Act cases, such as this one, the IJ’s determination must be upheld if
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Lei Li v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1154,
1157 (9th Cir. 2011). As long as one of the identified grounds underlying an adverse
credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the
claim of persecution, this court must affirm that finding. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959,
964 (9th Cir. 2004).
While the purported inconsistences identified by the IJ are not supported by
substantial evidence, the implausibility findings are supported. Don v. Gonzales, 476
F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that an IJ’s credibility determination will be
upheld unless “the evidence compels a contrary result” (emphasis in original) (internal
citation omitted)). The IJ found several parts of Karapetyan’s story to be implausible:
(1) the Armenian Ministry of National Security (“MNS”) would attack Karapetyan on
election day to prevent her from delivering a report documenting voting irregularities
when such irregularities were commonly known and widespread; (2) the MNS would
attempt to conscript Karapetyan as an informant given her minimal and low-level
2
participation in opposition political party activities; and (3) Karapetyan would not
have sought to learn the fate of other party members, including her traveling
companion, after alleged physical attacks on election day. Karapetyan was unable to
provide an explanation for any of the implausibilities identified by the IJ. The IJ was
within permissible bounds when he found Karapetyan’s testimony implausible in light
of background evidence and common sense. Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1135
(9th Cir. 2005).
Karapetyan also claimed she was hospitalized in connection with a miscarriage
she suffered shortly after the alleged attack but was unable to provide any
corroborating evidence of a miscarriage. She then explained that she did not attempt
to contact family members to obtain corroborating evidence because she feared for her
own safety and her family’s safety should the MNS learn their whereabouts.
However, evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the MNS could have
learned the whereabouts of Karapetyan and her family if it so desired. Karapetyan’s
exit visa indicating that she was traveling to the United States was in her passport
when it was stamped as she left Armenia. Further, her parents lived in the same place
for forty-five years, making it easy for the MNS to locate them if it wished. Simply
put, Karapetyan’s story just does not add up, and her implausible story, coupled with
3
her failure to provide any corroborating evidence, is fatal to her petition. See Chawla
v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010).
Because Karapetyan was not credible, her claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT were properly denied.
PETITION DENIED.
4