ARMEN SOGHBATYAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-70673 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 20 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ARMEN SOGHBATYAN; SHUSHAN NERSISYAN, No. 13-70673 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A088-115-405 A088-115-406 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2015** Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Armen Soghbatyan and Shushan Nersisyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Soghbatyan’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Soghbatyan’s testimony and visa documents regarding his work history. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). The record does not support Soghbatyan’s contention that the IJ did not consider his explanations, and Soghbatyan’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary conclusion, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Soghbatyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, Soghbatyan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the BIA found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by 2 13-70673 or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Armenia. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 13-70673
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
