Case ID: f-appx_377/html/0661-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samvel HOVANISYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71811.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2010.
    
    Filed April 26, 2010.
    Artem M. Sarian, Esq., Attorney at Law, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Samvel Hovanisyan (“Samvel”), a native of the former USSR and a citizen of Azerbaijan, and his son Karen Hovanisyan (“Karen”), a native of the former USSR and a citizen of Armenia or Azerbaijan, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering them removed from the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny Samvel’s and Karen’s petition for review. The BIA’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

I

“[W]hen the BIA incorporates the IJ’s decision as its own, we treat the IJ’s reasons as the BIA’s.” He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir.2003).

We review findings of fact for substantial evidence. Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir.2008). We will uphold the BIA’s decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).

II

The BIA’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. There are pervasive inconsistencies between the applications and the testimony at the hearing before the IJ. See Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir.1992) (noting that significant inconsistencies between the asylum application and testimony support an adverse credibility finding). Moreover, Samvel and Karen have failed to establish their identities and failed to present evidence that would compel us to conclude that “corroborating evidence is unavailable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). On the contrary, the record indicates that Samvel and Karen were given ample time to obtain corroborating evidence from their on-going relations in Armenia and Moscow.

Samvel and Karen simply have not presented sufficient evidence to “compel[ ]” a finding contrary to that of the IJ. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) defines the substantial evidence standard by stating that "the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”