Hovhannes Avetisyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RA/Research 06-70812
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOVHANNES AVETISYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70812
Agency No. A095-189-504
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Hovhannes Avetisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review
from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RA/Research 06-70812 2
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based upon
Avetisyan’s submission of a fraudulent newspaper article, hospital certificate, and
National Democratic Union card. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th
Cir. 2004) (fraudulent documents going to the heart of the claim may justify an
adverse credibility finding). Therefore, Avetisyan’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Avetisyan failed to exhaust his challenge to the IJ’s frivolousness finding
before the BIA, and therefore we dismiss the petition for review as to that claim.
See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004).
In his opening brief Avetisyan failed to challenge to the IJ’s denial of his
CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not raised are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --