Ashot Hrant Gasparyan; Margarita Soren Hakobian; Garik Gasparyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASHOT HRANT GASPARYAN;
MARGARITA SOREN HAKOBIAN;
GARIK GASPARYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70248
Agency Nos. A079-256-052
A079-256-053
A079-811-486
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 7, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ashot Gasparyan, Margarita Hakobian, and Garik Gasparyan (the
“Gasparyans”) seek review of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
NOV 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252.
After reviewing the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and
examining the Immigration Judge’s “oral decision as a guide to what lay behind
the BIA’s conclusion,” Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.
2000), we conclude that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility
determination. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011); Singh-Kaur
v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999). At the least, the inconsistencies
and equivocations in Gasparyan’s testimony concerning the duration of his
commitment to the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion go to the heart of the Gasparyans’
asylum claim. Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006).
The Gasparyans’ challenges to the denial of CAT relief were never
presented to the BIA below. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review them. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004); Rojas-Garcia v.
Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 2003).
DENIED.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --