PAPAZYAN V. HOLDER, No. 08-70393 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERT YENOKOVICH PAPAZYAN; VARTUSH PAPAZYAN, Petitioners, No. 08-70393 Agency Nos. A097-361-135 A097-361-136 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 11, 2012 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior District Judge.** 1 Albert Yenokovich Papazyan petitions for review of a decision of the Board 2 of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge s (IJ) denial of his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for South Dakota, sitting by designation. 1 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United 2 Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Papazyan s wife, Vartush Papazyan, 3 is a derivative applicant. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252. 4 We deny the petition. 5 Where, as here, the BIA reviews the IJ s decision for an abuse of 6 discretion, we review the IJ s decision. de Leon-Barrios v. I.N.S., 116 F.3d 391, 7 393 (9th Cir. 1997). We review the IJ s credibility findings under a substantial 8 evidence standard. Aguilera-Cota v. I.N.S., 914 F.2d 1375, 1381 (9th Cir. 1990). 9 The IJ s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence 10 because it was based on material inconsistencies that went to the heart of 11 Papazyan s asylum claim. See Berroteran-Melendez v. I.N.S., 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 12 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding substantial evidence supported the IJ s and BIA s adverse 13 credibility finding where there were material inconsistencies between petitioner s 14 asylum application and his testimony). Thus, the IJ had sufficient basis to 15 conclude that Papazyan failed to present credible testimony to establish his asylum 16 claim. Id. at 1257-58. It follows that the IJ also had sufficient basis to conclude 17 Papazyan failed to meet the stricter burden of proof required for withholding of 18 removal. Mejia-Paiz v. I.N.S., 111 F.3d 720, 725 (9th Cir. 1997). -2- 1 Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ s denial of CAT relief because 2 Papazyan failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if 3 he returned to Russia. Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2001). 4 DENIED. -3-
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.
