Case Name: Karen ARUSTAMYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-27
Citations: 339 F. App'x 744
Docket Number: No. 06-72651
Parties: Karen ARUSTAMYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 744–745

Head Matter:
Karen ARUSTAMYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72651.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 27, 2009.
Garbis N. Etmekjian, Etmekjian Law Offices, Glendale, CA, Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel G. Loner-gan, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Karen Arustamyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ's adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence, Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination in that Arustamyan repeatedly testified about his alleged mistreatment in a manner inconsistent with his declaration. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2007).
In the absence of credible testimony, Arustamyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.