FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VAROUJAN MINASIAN, No. 06-70091
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-102-566
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 December 10, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Varoujan Minasian, a national and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review
of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), adopting without
opinion the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Minasian’s application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the
petition for review.
Although not all of the IJ’s credibility findings are supportable, there is still
substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility determination. Wang v. INS,
352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003) (“So long as one of the identified grounds is
supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [the] claim of
persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.”).1
Although Minasian told the IJ that he was arrested twice in Armenia for his
political activity and beaten during one arrest, Minasian’s asylum application filed
in 1991 did not mention either arrest or the beating. The IJ found the discrepancy
sufficient to call into question whether the alleged persecution actually occurred.
Minasian argues that he did not raise the arrests in the application because of
translation difficulties. The application, however, states that the petitioner was
threatened during or after participation in political marches, and that he would be
arrested if he did not stop participating in such marches. The IJ concluded, based
on Minasian’s ability to convey the threat of future arrest, that alleged translation
1
Although the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109–13, Div. B, Title I,
§ 101(h)(2), 119 Stat. 231, has modified the scope of our review of an IJ’s adverse
credibility finding for asylum applications filed after May 11, 2005, these
modifications are not applicable here because Minasian filed his application before
the REAL ID Act’s effective date.
2
difficulties did not explain his failure to communicate his alleged arrests at the time
he filed his asylum application. This inconsistency goes to the heart of Minasian’s
claim, and constitutes substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility
finding. Accordingly, we are not presented with a situation where “no reasonable
factfinder could find that the petitioner was not credible.” Oshodi v. Holder, 671
F.3d 1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917
(9th Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Minasian failed to satisfy his burden of establishing eligibility for
asylum, he also cannot meet the higher withholding of removal standard. See
Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In failing to qualify
for asylum, [the petitioner] necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard
of proof for withholding of deportation.”).
In addition, because Minasian’s “claims under the Convention Against
Torture are based on the same statements . . . that the BIA determined to be not
credible,” this court “must similarly affirm the rejection of [Minasian’s] claim
under the Convention Against Torture.” Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, we note that Minasian has not been prejudiced by any delay on the
part of the government.
3
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4