N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
AR A GASPAR

YAN, Pe t i tione r,
v. R OB ER T M . W ILKINSON, Ac ting Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71432 Age n c y No. A098-448-890
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 Fe brua

ry 8, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A , M . SM ITH, a nd M U R GUIA, C i rc u it Judge s. Ara Ga spa ry an, a native of the Sovie t Union a nd c itiz e n of Arm e nia , pe titions for re vie w of a

de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA), dism issing his a

ppe a l of a de c ision of a

n Im m igration Judge (IJ). The IJ found



# FIL ED
MAR 5 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2)(C ).Ga spa

ry an not c re dible and thus de nie d his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of
re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(C AT). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition. 1. Ga spa

ry an first c h a lle nge s the IJ’ s re lia nc e on the la c k of e vide nc e that he re c e ive d le ga l sta

tus in Ukraine an d the a lle ge d inc onsiste n c y

in his
a ddre s s. The B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t the se we re not signific ant c onside rations in the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Aguilar Fe rmin v . Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 891–92 (9th C ir.) (“ ‘ W e re vie w de nia ls of
a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d C AT re l ie f for substa

ntia l e vide nc e and will uphold a de nia l supporte d by

re a sona ble , substa

ntia l, a nd proba tive e v ide nc e on the
re c o rd c onside re d a s a

whole .’ ” ) (quoting Ling Huang v
. Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014)), c e rt. de nie d , 141 S. C t. 664 (2020). The IJ’ s sta te m e nt tha

t the re wa s no e vide nc e Ga spa ry an wa s gra

nte d pe rm ane nt le ga l sta

tus in Ukraine
wa s m e re ly

a sta t e m e nt of fa c t in there c ita t ion of Ga spa

ry an’ s ba c k ground. Nor did the IJ “ m e aningfully

re ly ” on the a lle ge d

disc re pa nc y be twe e n Ga spa

ry an’ s sta te m e nt tha

t he m ove d to Ere b uni, a

suburb of Ye re va

n, a nd his a ddre ss in Ye re va n. 2. Ga spa

ry an a lso c ha lle nge s the IJ’ s re lia nc e on c ourt re c ords showing he ha d no a

rre s t history , a

rguing tha

t the re is no re c ord of his a rre sts be c a

use the 2arre sts we re ille g a l. None the le ss, the IJ furthe r found tha t Ga spa ry an’ s te stim ony
wa s inc onsiste nt, sta

ting initia lly tha t he we nt to thepolic e de pa rtm e nt to obtain this a rre st re c ord, but whe n a s ke d why he would go to the

polic e if he fe a

re d the m , he sta te d tha t he obta ine d the arre st re c ord from the c ourt. This finding is supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . 3. Ga spa

ry an furthe r c onte n ds tha

t the IJ e rre d in re ly ing on thela c k of
e vide nc e of his e m

ploy m e nt in Arm e nia

from an Arm e nia

n a uthority , a

nd his ina b ility to “ re m e m

b e r the nam e of the orga

niz ation” in his ora l te stim ony . As to the first c onte ntion, theIJ sta te d tha t whe n Ga s pa

ry an wa s a ske d a

bout his work book, he initia lly

“ i ndic ate d it doe s not e xist,” but the n sta t e d tha t he c ould ge t it, whic h the IJ found wa s a

n “ inte rna lly

inc o nsiste nt se nte nc e .” This finding is supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . Ga spa ry an’ s ina bility to re m e m

be r the nam e of his hotline orga niz ation a lso is supporte d by

the re c ord. He argue s tha t his ina bility to re m e m

be r the nam e
c ould ha v e be e n due to ne rvousne ss, fa tigue , or a te m pora ry m e m ory la p se and points out tha

t he sta t e d tha t he would re m e m

b e r it soon. He

a lso a rgue s tha t the IJ found tha t he “ w a s inde e d the founde r of the Ye re v an 94 c ha rita ble orga niz ation.” His a rgum e nts a

re not suffic ie nt to e sta

blish the“ ‘ e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s’ ”
re quire d to ove rturn a

n a dve rse c re dibility

de t e rm ination. Iman v . Barr , 972 F.3d 31058, 1064 (9th C ir. 2020) (quoting J in v . Holde r , 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th C ir. 2014)). Inste a d, a s the B IA found, the se argum e nts a re ba se d on “ suppositions”
a bout his “ inte rna l m e nta l sta te whic h a

re not c le arly

supporte d from

the re c ord.” 4. W e a c knowle dge Ga spa ry an’ s c onc e rn tha

t the IJ’ s findings re ga

rding his e nga ge m e nt a

nd his “ de l ay ” in le av ing Arm e nia are ba se d on “ i m

pe rm issible spe c ulation a

nd c o nje c ture .” Gev . Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th C ir. 2004). Howe ve r, “ [w] e a fford a

‘ he a l thy m e a sure of de fe re nc e to a ge nc y c re dibility de te rm i nations,’ m indful tha t ‘ IJs a re in the be s t position to a sse ss de m e a n or and othe r c re dibility

c u e s tha t we c a nnot re a dily a c c e ss [sic ] on re vie w.’ ” Mane s v . Se ssions , 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th C ir. 2017) (quoting Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2010)). The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D
. 1

1 W e ne e d not a d dre ss Ga spa ry an’ s c onte ntion tha

t c orroborative e vide nc e is not re quire d onc e the a pplic ant is found c re dible be c a use the a g e nc y ’ s de nia l of re lie f wa s ba se d on its a dve rse c re d ibility finding. 4