Samvel Mkhoyan; Liana Grigoryan 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).
The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.***
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMVEL MKHOYAN; LIANA
GRIGORYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72501
Agency Nos. A098-848-407
A098-848-408
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 4, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT, RAWLINSON, and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges.***
Petitioners Samvel Mkhoyan and Liana Grigoryan seek review of a final
order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA
FILED
DEC 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Petitioners filed their application after May 11, 2005, and therefore the1
REAL ID Act applies to this case. See Zhiqiang Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1017
n.5 (9th Cir. 2011).
Page 2 of 3
affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility determination and denial
of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT).1
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
given Mkhoyan’s implausible explanations for the factual inconsistencies in his
testimony and his failure to provide corroborating evidence. See Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047-48 (9th Cir. 2010).
2. Substantial evidence supports denial of Mkhoyan’s asylum application,
because he failed to establish that his mistreatment constituted persecution and was
on account of his political opinion. Although Mkhoyan was detained overnight and
beaten by the police, we have held that single, isolated encounters with the
authorities do not constitute past persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339
(9th Cir. 1995); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006).
Further, the evidence does not compel a finding that his political opinion was a

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
central reason for his mistreatment, given that he was detained for refusing to
vacate the military base. See Zhiqiang Hu, 652 F.3d at 1017.
3. Because Mkhoyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his application
for withholding of removal also fails. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854
(9th Cir. 2009), as amended (“[A]n alien who fails to satisfy the lower standard of
proof required to establish eligibility for asylum necessarily fails to establish
eligibility for withholding of removal.”) (citation omitted).
4. Because Mkhoyan’s application for CAT relief was premised on the same
evidence as his asylum and withholding of removal claims, CAT relief was
properly denied. See Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir.
2010).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --