Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0607-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samvel AVETISYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75229.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 21, 2007.
    John D. Friedman, Law Offices of John D. Friedman, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Susan R. Hershman, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Civil & Tax Divisions, 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: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Samvel Avetisyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where it is unclear whether the BIA conducted a de novo review, we look to the IJ’s decision as a guide. See Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence, see Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Avetisyan’s omission from his asylum interview of the physical abuse that he claimed he suffered during his detention goes to the heart of his asylum claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, his asylum claim is denied.

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