NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISHKHANOHI ZOHRABIAN, AKA 

Eshkhanuhi Zohrabiam; ASATOOR 

MERZEKHENIAN, AKA Asatoor 

Mardirosian, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73810

Agency Nos. A075-688-901 

A075-688-902

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 11, 2019

**

Pasadena, California

Before: BOGGS,*** BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Ishkhanohi Zohrabian, a.k.a. Eshkhanuhi Zohrabiam, and Asatoor 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73810

Merzekhenian, a.k.a. Asatoor Mardirosian, allegedly a married couple and natives 

and citizens of Iran, arrived in the United States without inspection and in 2000 filed 

in California a joint application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming that, as they were Armenian 

Christians, they feared persecution if returned to Iran. After being charged with 

removability as aliens present without admission or parole in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), Petitioners, who already admitted to the allegations in their 

Notices to Appear, filed in Colorado new applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under CAT. 

In the Colorado applications, Petitioners alleged different facts regarding their 

identities and past, such as different names, birth details, dates of entry, family status, 

details of their lives in Iran, and of alleged persecution. After an Immigration Judge 

(“IJ”) found the applicants not credible, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 

remanded their case back to California, where another IJ made an adverse credibility 

determination based on Petitioners’ multiple filings and inconsistent testimonies, 

including their admission of filing counterfeit documents regarding their identities, 

births, and religious affiliations. The evidence filed by the government also 

contradicted some of Petitioners’ allegations; for example, Petitioners were shown 

to have previously filed U.S. non-immigrant visa applications in Armenia. The IJ

found that Petitioners had knowingly filed frivolous asylum applications and denied 
3 16-73810

the applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.

Petitioners then appealed to the BIA the denial of withholding of removal and 

CAT protection, but not the finding of filing frivolous asylum applications. The BIA 

remanded the proceedings for further fact-finding. On remand, the IJ found that 

additional documentation provided by Petitioners carried little evidentiary value to 

show their purported ethnicity and religion, while a new birth certificate further 

contradicted the one already in the record. The IJ denied relief on October 1, 2015, 

finding that Petitioners neither established their identity as Armenian Christians nor 

that they would be more likely than not persecuted or tortured upon removal to Iran. 

After the BIA affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge on November 3, 2016, 

Petitioners timely filed the present petition for review. 

This court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review a timely appeal 

from a final order of removal. Abdisalan v. Holder, 774 F.3d 517, 523 (9th Cir. 2014)

(en banc). Denials of withholding of removal and CAT relief are reviewed under the 

substantial evidence standard. Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 

2016). “[F]indings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would 

be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). In order to 

grant a petition for review, we “must determine ‘that the evidence not only supports

[a contrary] conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion’ 

that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief.” Garcia-Milian 
4 16-73810

v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting INS 

v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.l (1992)). 

Considering Petitioners’ contradictory statements, supporting documentation, 

and multiple, inconsistent applications for asylum, substantial evidence supported 

the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish they were Iranian Armenians

of Christian faith and thus would not be subject to persecution upon removal to Iran. 

See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We . . . will 

uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the 

record considered as a whole.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Petitioners did 

not provide identification documents. The alleged birth certificates of Petitioner 

Zohrabian contained contradictory information and unexplained inconsistencies, 

such as different dates of baptism and different names of the officiating reverend 

and of the godfather. A letter provided by a reverend in California was appropriately 

given little weight because it was only two sentences long and provided no 

information about the extent of Petitioners’ involvement in the church. The 

declaration of an Iranian national in support of Petitioner Zohrabian’s identity did 

not provide any information about her faith. 

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Petitioners are 

ineligible for CAT protection. The two reports submitted by Petitioners do not 
5 16-73810

establish that it is more likely than not they will be tortured if removed to Iran, and 

the evidence fails to compel a different result. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).

Thus, we DENY THE PETITION FOR REVIEW.