United States v. 2020-07-20 | 19-71433 | HAMLET PETROSYAN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAMLET PETROSYAN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71433

Agency No. A070-390-792

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 10, 2020
**

Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ and BADE, Circuit Judges, and GORDON,
***
District Judge.

Hamlet Petrosyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for
the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
FILED

JUL 20 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
1
We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review factual findings, including
adverse credibility [findings], under the deferential substantial evidence
standard[,]” and reverse only when the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Ai
Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). “For applications filed
after May 11, 2005, such as [Petrosyan’s], the credibility standards set forth in the
REAL ID Act apply.” Id. We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Petrosyan’s vague testimony about his past criminal history and
inconsistent testimony about whether he was physically harmed by his coworkers
and how his coworkers learned of his HIV status. The BIA found Petrosyan’s
explanation that his medication impacted his memory to be insufficient and
unpersuasive, noting that Petrosyan presented no evidence to the IJ or on appeal to
support his explanation. And the BIA rejected Petrosyan’s arguments about
interpreter issues because Petrosyan allowed the interview transcript to be admitted
into evidence and failed to identify what material information the interpreter
incorrectly translated. In the absence of credible testimony, Petrosyan’s asylum
/ / / /

1
Petrosyan does not seek review of the BIA’s decision affirming the
denial of his CAT claim.

3
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We deny Petrosyan’s Motion for Stay of Removal, Dkt. 5, as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.