KNARIK MKRTCHYAN V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-71730 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 16 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KNARIK MKRTCHYAN; SAMVEL MKRTCHYAN; KRISTINE MKRTCHYAN, No. 08-71730 Agency Nos. A075-690-229 A075-690-230 A078-015-989 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 9, 2012 ** San Francisco, California Before: FARRIS, NOONAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Knarik Mkrtchyan, Samvel Mkrtchyan, and Kristine Mkrtchyan, citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration 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 affirmance of the Immigration Judge s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under article 3 of the Convention against Torture. The IJ found Petitioners claim incredible based on significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in their testimony. We find that the IJ s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and deny the petition for review. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2007). Knarik, the lead petitioner, asserted past persecution and fear of future persecution on account of her membership in the Armenian National Movement and related actions. The IJ correctly found that Knarik provided insufficient credible or specific evidence to show there is a reasonable possibility that either she or her husband Samvel would be subject to persecution in Armenia. See Immigration and Nationality Act, § 101(a)(42)(a), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(42)(A). There were numerous discrepancies in the testimony of both Knarik and Kristine, the only witnesses to testify. The discrepancies concerned significant facts going to the heart of their claims. Knarik testified inconsistently regarding the number of times she was detained by police and alleged threats made against her daughters, and Kristine testified inconsistently regarding her whereabouts during periods material to her claim. Because the IJ cited specific reasons to doubt Petitioners credibility, this 2 court finds that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. We therefore deny Petitioners' petition for review. PETITION DENIED. 3