Aris Karamyan 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 Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARIS KARAMYAN
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70853
Agency No. A75 706 897
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 10, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District
Judge.**
Aris Karamyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JUL 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
8 U.S.C. § 1252, and review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence.
Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because there were inconsistencies and discrepancies about petitioner’s motivation
for applying for a U.S. visa and his fear of political persecution in light of the
changed country conditions. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004).
Karamyan failed to provide a sufficient explanation in response to these concerns
and discrepancies. See de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 393-94 (9th Cir.
1997). Further, we defer to the IJ’s finding that the incidents related to the
divesture of the poultry factory shares were not politically motivated. See
Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999).
In the absence of credible testimony, Karamyan failed to establish eligibility
for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Karamyan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony, which the IJ found
to be not credible. Furthermore, in light of U.S. State Department country reports
indicating local authorities prosecuted individuals responsible for the 1999 election
violence, Karamyan has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he

-- 2 of 3 --

3
would be tortured if returned to Armenia. See id. at 1156-57. Accordingly, his
CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --