Margarit Voskanyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARGARIT VOSKANYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70233
Agency No. A097-361-222
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 12, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and SILVERMAN, Circuit
Judges.
1. We don’t have jurisdiction to review the purely factual question of
whether Voskanyan filed her application within one year of arriving in the United
FILED
FEB 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

page 2
States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). This is not a case where under “any view of the
historical facts,” the applicant filed an application within one year of arrival. Lin
v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Khunaverdiants v.
Mukasey, 548 F.3d 760, 765 (9th Cir. 2008).
2. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination, so
we uphold the decision not to withhold removal or grant relief under the
Convention Against Torture. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th
Cir. 2001). Voskanyan couldn’t provide so much as a single address for her
alleged year-long stays in Shirak and Moscow, raising doubts as to her credibility.
See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999). She then failed to
produce easily available corroborating evidence of her whereabouts, or give an
explanation for her failure to do so. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th
Cir. 2000).
Additionally, Voskanyan copied, word-for-word, critical elements of her
sister’s successful asylum application, which never mentioned Voskanyan’s
involvement in any whistleblowing activities. While both sisters described the
same whistleblowing operation, they told inconsistent stories and each took
personal credit for the key act that supposedly triggered the persecution. The BIA

-- 2 of 3 --

page 3
therefore had another cogent reason to find Voskanyan not credible—that her
account of events was inconsistent with her sister’s in a way that went to the heart
of her claim. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --