Armen Muradyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMEN MURADYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74725
Agency No. A096-362-908
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 12, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Armen Muradyan (“Muradyan”), a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal
of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering him removed to Armenia. We
FILED
APR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
have jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny
Muradyan’s petition.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
I
The BIA’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhao v.
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 2008). We uphold the BIA’s decision if it
is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039–40 (9th Cir.
2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
II
The BIA’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.
The hearing transcript contains numerous examples of Muradyan’s elusive,
confused and incoherent responses to the IJ’s questions. See Sing-Kaur v. INS, 183
F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that courts “give ‘special deference’ to a
credibility determination that is based on demeanor”). Likewise, Muradyan’s
testimony about his involvement in the election was notably inconsistent, as he
offered several conflicting descriptions of his participation. Additionally,
Muradyan’s testimony regarding the nature of the $500 payment he received
contradicted his earlier representations about that payment that he made in his

-- 2 of 3 --

3
declaration. See Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 1992)
(noting that significant inconsistencies between the asylum application and
testimony support an adverse credibility finding).
In the aggregate, these considerations provide substantial evidence for the
BIA’s adverse credibility finding.
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --