Ovsanna Karapetyan 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OVSANNA KARAPETYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70748
Agency No. A079-331-036
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Ovsanna Karapetyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NED/Research 07-70748 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038,
1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Karapetyan’s testimony omitted the knife attack she suffered in March 1998,
which she described in her asylum application, and her testimony was inconsistent
with her declaration concerning the year of the attack following her radio
broadcast. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because these discrepancies go to the heart of her claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043 (9th Cir.
2001).
Because Karapetyan failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows
that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Karapetyan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the IJ
determined was not credible, and Karapetyan points to no other evidence the IJ
should have considered, she failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --