Varduhi Mkrtchyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VARDUHI MKRTCHYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70147
Agency No. A075-741-570
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.
Varduhi Mkrtchyan, a native of Iran 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,
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 --

07-70147 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on Mkrtchyan’s omission from her asylum application that she was knocked
unconscious during the 1997 attack, see Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071
(9th Cir. 2007), as well as the discrepancies between Mkrtchyan’s testimony and
documentary evidence regarding the length of her hospitalization and the cause of
her husband’s death, 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). The IJ
reasonably found Mkrtchyan’s explanations for the omission and discrepancies
unconvincing. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the
absence of credible testimony, Mkrtchyan’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Mkrtchyan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the IJ
found to be not credible, and Mkrtchyan points to no other evidence the agency

-- 2 of 3 --

07-70147 3
should have considered, her CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --