Hayk Grigoryan 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).
KY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAYK GRIGORYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70607
Agency No. A097-356-367
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.
Hayk Grigoryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
DEC 23 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KY/Research 06-70607 2
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1253 (9th Cir. 2003), and we dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Grigoryan’s
asylum application was untimely because that finding is based on disputed facts.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); cf. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam) (exercising jurisdiction to consider one-year bar determination
where facts were undisputed). Accordingly, we dismiss Grigoryan’s asylum claim.
Grigoryan claims his father, Vartan Grigoryan, was persecuted in Armenia
because of articles his father wrote against the Robert Kocharyan government, and
that he was persecuted, in part, for the same reason. The IJ found Grigoryan not
credible, among other reasons, because: Grigoryan could not recall which month
his father was beaten “almost to death”; there were implausibilities regarding
Grigoryan’s lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of his father and the rest of
family in the United States; there was no documentation that Vartan Girgoryan was
his father; and Grigoryan failed to produce any articles written by his father against
the Robert Kocharyan government. We conclude the record does not compel
reversal of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

-- 2 of 3 --

KY/Research 06-70607 3
502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992); see also Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir.
2000) (when the IJ has reason to question applicant’s credibility, the IJ may require
applicant to corroborate testimony). In the absence of credible testimony,
Grigoryan failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)
Finally, because Grigoryan did not raise his CAT claim before the BIA, it is
unexhausted and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --