RUZANNA SARGSYAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72851 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 12 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUZANNA ASHOT SARGSYAN, Petitioner, No. 13-72851 Agency No. A099-589-992 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 8, 2016** Pasadena, California Before: SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and DORSEY,*** District Judge. Ruzanna Sargsyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of a final order of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 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 that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Jennifer A. Dorsey, District States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. review for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039, 1047-48 (9th Cir. 2010). Sargsyan’s inconsistent testimony about the alleged May 2004 assault and subsequent hospitalization provides substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding. See id. at 1046–47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the finding that Sargsyan did not satisfactorily explain the inconsistencies. Nor does the remaining evidence in the record compel a finding that Sargsyan more likely than not would be tortured by the government or with its acquiescence if she returns to Armenia. See id. at 1048–49 (If the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, the remaining documents in the record must compel a finding of eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture). PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.