Lusine Zakaryan v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUSINE ZAKARYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General
Respondent.
No. 12-73994
Agency No. A088-394-645
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 19, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: MELLOY,** IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Lusine Zakaryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
FEB 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations pursuant
to the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Zakaryan’s inconsistent testimony regarding the pattern of events leading to
her departure from Armenia, her apparently evasive demeanor at the hearing, and her
untruthfulness on prior visa applications. See id. at 1048 (holding an adverse
credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). The
agency reasonably rejected Zakaryan’s explanations for these inconsistencies as
nonresponsive or unconvincing. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th
Cir. 2007) (upholding an IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on a petitioner’s
inconsistent testimony). In the absence of credible testimony of past persecution or
a reasonable probability well-founded fear of future persecution, Zakaryan’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031–33 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2013) (“An applicant who fails to satisfy the standard of
proof for asylum also fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

removal.”). Zakaryan’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
statements the agency found not credible and she does not point to other evidence
showing it is “more likely than not” she will be tortured if returned to Armenia. Id.
at 1033.
Accordingly, Zakaryan’s petition for review is DENIED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --