Case Name: Robert DARABEDYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-13
Citations: 238 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 06-70882
Parties: Robert DARABEDYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 238
Pages: 307–309

Head Matter:
Robert DARABEDYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70882.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007.
Filed July 13, 2007.
Inna Lipkin, Esq., Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Susan M. Harrison, Esq., USSE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert Darabedyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on an inconsistency between petitioner's testimony and a State Department report regarding the leader of his political party, an inconsistency between his testimony and documentary evidence regarding his medical treatment, and a finding that his testimony was vague and lacking in detail regarding his activities for his political party. See id. at 1043-45.
Because petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of relief under CAT. See id. at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.