Samvel Hovanisyan; v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMVEL HOVANISYAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71811
Agency Nos. A095-605-455
A095-605-456
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 12, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Samvel Hovanisyan (“Samvel”), a native of the former USSR and a citizen
of Azerbaijan, and his son Karen Hovanisyan (“Karen”), a native of the former
USSR and a citizen of Armenia or Azerbaijan, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s
FILED
APR 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) defines the substantial evidence standard by1
stating that “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
2
(“IJ”) decision ordering them removed from the United States. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny Samvel’s and Karen’s
petition for review. The BIA’s adverse credibility finding is supported by
substantial evidence.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
I
“[W]hen the BIA incorporates the IJ’s decision as its own, we treat the IJ’s
reasons as the BIA’s.” He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 595–96 (9th Cir. 2003).
We review findings of fact for substantial evidence. Zhao v. Mukasey, 5401
F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 2008). We will uphold the BIA’s decision if it is
“supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039–40 (9th Cir.
2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
II
The BIA’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.
There are pervasive inconsistencies between the applications and the testimony at
the hearing before the IJ. See Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(9th Cir. 1992) (noting that significant inconsistencies between the asylum
application and testimony support an adverse credibility finding). Moreover,
Samvel and Karen have failed to establish their identities and failed to present
evidence that would compel us to conclude that “corroborating evidence is
unavailable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). On the contrary, the record indicates that
Samvel and Karen were given ample time to obtain corroborating evidence from
their on-going relations in Armenia and Moscow.
Samvel and Karen simply have not presented sufficient evidence to
“compel[]” a finding contrary to that of the IJ. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --