Greta Iritsyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRETA IRITSYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72490
Agency No. A099-350-970
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Greta Iritsyan petitions this Court for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ decision denying her asylum application. The immigration judge
concluded that Iritsyan was not credible. The BIA adopted and affirmed the
FILED
APR 15 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 --

immigration judge’s decision. Because substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility finding, we deny the petition.
Where “the BIA adopts the decision of the [immigration judge], we review
the [immigration judge’s] decision as if it were that of the BIA.” Abebe v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks
omitted). We review the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding for
substantial evidence, reversing only if “the petitioner’s evidence was so compelling
that no reasonable factfinder could find that he was not credible.” Kin v. Holder,
595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the record does not compel reversal. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1046–47 (9th Cir. 2010). Iritsyan’s testimony that the police held her for
only a couple of hours after arresting her for participating in an April 2004
demonstration is inconsistent with her declaration, which states that she had been
held overnight. Iritsyan’s explanation that she confused her arrest with her father’s
is implausible and is inconsistent with her later testimony that she had, in fact, been
held overnight during the 2004 arrest. These inconsistencies are substantial.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

The petitioner suggests that “under the pre-REAL ID Act standards, these[]
issues would have been considered to be minor, irrelevant and not going to the
heart of the petitioner’s claim for asylum.” But as the petitioner concedes, the Real
ID Act applies to her asylum claim, and that act eliminated any requirement that an
inconsistency go to the heart of the claim. Id. at 1043.
Because Iritsyan did not establish her eligibility for asylum, we must
necessarily affirm the denial of her application for withholding of removal as well.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence
also supports the BIA’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. See
id. at 1157.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --