Varduhi Sashoyan 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).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VARDUHI SASHOYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-74625
Agency No. A097-364-365
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Varduhi Sashoyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

AR/Research 05-74625 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257
F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because Sashoyan testified about her alleged mistreatment in an internally
inconsistent manner. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007)
(inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse
credibility finding where inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim); Kaur v.
Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005) (repeated and significant
inconsistencies deprived claim of the requisite “ring of truth”). Because at least
one of the identified grounds underlying the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is
supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim of persecution,
we are bound to accept the negative credibility finding. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Sashoyan
failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, because Sashoyan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the
IJ found not credible, and she points to no other evidence the IJ should have

-- 2 of 3 --

AR/Research 05-74625 3
considered, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --