Karen Martoyan; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KAREN MARTOYAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70227
Agency Nos. A077-849-717
A077-849-718
A077-849-719
A077-849-720
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Karen Martoyan and his family, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-70227 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and we dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimely filed asylum
application because it 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).
Martoyan omitted additional incidents of harm, as well as the identity of his
attackers from his asylum application statement. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959,
962 (9th Cir. 2004). He also testified inconsistently with documentary evidence
regarding where he was hospitalized in 1996. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938
(9th Cir. 2000) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence
support an adverse credibility finding). Because the agency reasonably found that
Martoyan’s explanations for the discrepancies were unconvincing, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Wang v.
INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1256-57 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, in the absence of
credible testimony, Martoyan’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-70227 3
Martoyan’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same evidence
the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any evidence in the record
that would compel a finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured if he
returned to Armenia. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --