Case ID: f-appx_271/html/0605-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abraham ABRAHAMIAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75065.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008.
    
    Filed March 25, 2008.
    James L. Rosenberg, Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, James A. Hunolt, M. Lee Quinn, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Abraham Abrahamian, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility findings under the substantial evidence standard, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on evidence that Abrahamian fled Armenia because of financial difficulties rather than to avoid religious persecution. See id. at 742 (inconsistency undermining a petitioner’s claim that he fled to escape persecution goes to the heart of the claim and is sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding).

As the record does not compel the conclusion that Abrahamian’s testimony was credible, he has not established eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.