Arevik Ghazaryan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AREVIK GHAZARYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72598
Agency No. A095-875-483
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Arevik Ghazaryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72598 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence an adverse credibility finding, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274
(9th Cir. 2007), and review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v.
INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because of the multiple inconsistencies within Ghazaryan’s testimony and between
her testimony and declaration concerning the years of her alleged encounters with
the police, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007) and based on
Ghazaryan’s voluntary return to Armenia in 2000, see Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d
1016, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2008). The IJ properly rejected Ghazaryan’s explanations
for the inconsistencies. See Rivera, 508 F.3d at 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the
absence of credible testimony, Ghazaryan’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Ghazaryan’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not
credible, and she points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not she
would be tortured if returned to Armenia, her CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
Ghazaryan contends her due process rights were violated when the
government did not make the author of an investigative report available for cross-
examination. The proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [she] was

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72598 3
prevented from reasonably presenting [her] case” because the IJ continued the
hearing so Ghazaryan could respond to the report and Ghazaryan did not seek to
cross-examine the report’s author. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d at 971 (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --