Case Name: Gohar MELKONYAN, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-19
Citations: 252 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 05-74428
Parties: Gohar MELKONYAN, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 252
Pages: 134–134

Head Matter:
Gohar MELKONYAN, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74428.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 16, 2007.
Filed Oct. 19, 2007.
Gohar Melkonyan, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marshall Tamor Golding, Esq., David E. Dauenheimer, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The IJ articulated specific inconsistencies in petitioner's testimony that went to the heart of her asylum claim, and as such, the record supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding, even if the demeanor evidence is not considered. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence thus supports the IJ's finding that petitioner did not show that she is eligible for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Because Melkonyan fails to establish eligibility for asylum, she also fails to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Given the adverse credibility finding, her claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture also fails because the record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that she will suffer intentionally-inflicted cruel and inhuman treatment upon returning to Armenia. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.