Ruzanna Gevorgyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUZANNA GEVORGYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70122
Agency No. A077-302-591
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ruzanna Gevorgyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
FEB 25 2014
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 3 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
Gevorgyan has not contested the agency’s dispositive finding that she failed
to file her asylum application with a reasonable time following any extraordinary
or changed circumstances. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). Thus, we
deny Gevorgyan’s petition for review with respect to her asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on, among other findings, Gevorgyan’s implausible testimony that she
joined an organization in 1997 to investigate a terrorist act that did not occur until
1999, and the discrepancy between her testimony and her declaration regarding the
date of that terrorist act. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004)
(upholding an adverse credibility finding that was supported by substantial
evidence and went to the heart of the claim); Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th
Cir. 2000) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence
supported an adverse credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony,
Gevorgyan’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
12-70122 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Because Gevorgyan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely
than not she will be tortured if returned to Armenia, her CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156-57. We reject Gevorgyan’s contention that the agency improperly
analyzed her claim. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283-84 (9th Cir.
2001).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-70122 3

-- 3 of 3 --