N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EDGAR ZAR GAR

YAN, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73367 Age n c y No. A097-859-273 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Edga r Zargary an, a

native and c itiz e n of Arm e nia , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his m otion to re m a n d a nd dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic a tion for a s y lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the 

# FIL ED JAN 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C .

§ 1252. W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, C he bc houb v . IN

S , 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th C ir. 2001), for a buse of disc re tion the de nia l of a

m otion to re m and, Malhi v . IN S , 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th C i r. 2003), a nd de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola tions, Sime onov

v . Ashc r oft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th C ir. 2004). W e d e ny the pe tition for re vie w. As a n initia l m atte r, the B IA did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing Zargary a n’ s m o t ion to re m and whe re he fa ile d to de m onstra

te prim a fa c i e e ligibility for a djustm e n t of sta

tus. Se e IN

S v . Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988). The re c ord doe s not support Za rgary an’ s c onte ntion tha

t the B IA did not c onside r a ll the e vide nc e , inc luding his de c la ration. Furthe r, we re

je c t Za rgary a n ’ s c onte ntion tha

t the B IA viola

te d due proc e ss by

de ny ing his m o tion to re m and. Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror a nd pre judic e to pre va il on a

due proc e ss c la im ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nation ba se d on the inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n Za rgary an’ s te stim o ny

and doc um e n t ary e vide nc e re ga

rding whe n he wa s ha

rm e d, whe n he le ft Arm e nia for M osc ow, a

nd whe n a nd how he obta ine d tra

ve l doc um e nts. Se e C

he bc houb , 257 F.3d a

t 1043 (inc onsiste nc ie s “ a

bout the e ve n ts le a ding up to [pe t itione r’ s] de pa rture ,” go to the

1 2 - 7 3 3 6 7 2he art of the c la i m , a nd support a

n a dve rse c re dibility

finding). Za

rgary a n ’ s e xpla nations do not c om

p e l a c ontra ry re sult. Se e Lata , 204 F.3d a t 1245. W e re je c t Za rga ry an’ s c onte ntions tha

t the a ge n c y ’ s findings a

re ba se d on spe c ulation and c onje c ture . In the a

bse nc e of c re dible te s tim ony , Za rgary an’ s a sy lum

and withholding of rem o v a l c la im s fa il. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). Furthe r, be c a

use Zargary an’ s C AT c l a im is ba se d on the sa

m e te stim ony found not c re dible , a

nd he doe s not point to a

ny othe r e vide nc e that c om

pe l s the finding tha

t it is m ore like ly

tha n not he would be torture d if re turne d to Arm e nia , his C AT c la i m

a lso fa ils. Se e id. a t 1156-57. C ontra ry to Za rga ry an’ s c o nte ntion, the re c ord shows thea ge nc y c o nside re d the c ountry re port. This dism issa l is without pre

judic e to pe titione r’ s se e king prose c utoria l disc re tion or de fe rre d a c t ion from the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e l and Se c urity . Se e Re no v . Ame ric an-Arab Anti-Disc rimination C ommitte e (AADC

) , 525 U.S. 471, 483-85 (1999) (sta

ting tha t prose c utoria l disc re tion by the a ge nc y

c an be grante d at any sta ge , inc luding a fte r the c onc lusion of judic ia l re vie w). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 3 6 7 3