Anushavan Harutyunyan 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANUSHAVAN HARUTYUNYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74594
Agency No. A096-151-835
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Anushavan Harutyunyan, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

06-74594 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S. C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on both the omission from Harutyunyan’s detailed declaration and direct
testimony of the mob attack and police beating he testified about on cross-
examination, see id. at 962-63, and the inconsistency between Harutyunyan’s
testimony and the medical document regarding the reasons for his hospitalization,
see Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies between
testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding where
inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim). Accordingly, in the absence of
credible testimony, Harutyunyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Harutyunyan failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured in
Russia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not address Harutyunyan’s contention that he established past
persecution based on the harms he suffered in Chechnya and the filtration camp
because the BIA did not address this contention, see Ramirez-Altamirano v.

-- 2 of 3 --

06-74594 3
Holder, 563 F.3d 800, 804 (9th Cir. 2009), and Harutyunyan does not claim that
the BIA erred in failing to address the issue, see Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-70 (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief
are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --