ASHOT GASPARYAN V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-70248 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ASHOT HRANT GASPARYAN; MARGARITA SOREN HAKOBIAN; GARIK GASPARYAN, No. 10-70248 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A079-256-052 A079-256-053 A079-811-486 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 7, 2013** Pasadena, California Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Ashot Gasparyan, Margarita Hakobian, and Garik Gasparyan (the Gasparyans ) seek review of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and * 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). relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. After reviewing the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) and examining the Immigration Judge s oral decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA s conclusion, Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000), we conclude that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999). At the least, the inconsistencies and equivocations in Gasparyan s testimony concerning the duration of his commitment to the Jehovah s Witnesses religion go to the heart of the Gasparyans asylum claim. Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006). The Gasparyans challenges to the denial of CAT relief were never presented to the BIA below. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004); Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 2003). DENIED. -2-

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.