Knarik Mkrtchyan; Samvel Mkrtchyan; Kristine Mkrtchyan v. Michael B. Mukasey

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).
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KNARIK MKRTCHYAN; SAMVEL
MKRTCHYAN; KRISTINE
MKRTCHYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,
Respondent.
No. 08-71730
Agency Nos. A075-690-229
A075-690-230
A078-015-989
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 9, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: FARRIS, NOONAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Knarik Mkrtchyan, Samvel Mkrtchyan, and Kristine Mkrtchyan,
citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
FILED
NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under article 3 of the Convention against
Torture. The IJ found Petitioners’ claim incredible based on “significant
discrepancies and inconsistencies” in their testimony. We find that the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and deny the petition
for review. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2007).
Knarik, the lead petitioner, asserted past persecution and fear of future
persecution on account of her membership in the Armenian National Movement
and related actions. The IJ correctly found that Knarik provided insufficient
credible or specific evidence to show there is a reasonable possibility that either
she or her husband Samvel would be subject to persecution in Armenia. See
Immigration and Nationality Act, § 101(a)(42)(a), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
There were numerous discrepancies in the testimony of both Knarik and Kristine,
the only witnesses to testify. The discrepancies concerned significant facts going to
the heart of their claims. Knarik testified inconsistently regarding the number of
times she was detained by police and alleged threats made against her daughters,
and Kristine testified inconsistently regarding her whereabouts during periods
material to her claim.
Because the IJ cited specific reasons to doubt Petitioners’ credibility, this

-- 2 of 3 --

3
court finds that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. We
therefore deny Petitioners' petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --