Case Name: Sona MIRIJANYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-02
Citations: 586 F. App'x 322
Docket Number: No. 11-73915
Parties: Sona MIRIJANYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 322–322

Head Matter:
Sona MIRIJANYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73915.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 2, 2014.
Sassoun Nalbandian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
Jeffery R. Leist, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sona Mirijanyan and her daughter, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies between Miri-janyan's testimony and written application regarding the central incident of harm Mi-rijanyan allegedly suffered, and where she lived at the time. See id. at 1043 (inconsistencies about the events leading up to petitioner's departure and the number of times he was arrested went to the heart of the claim). Mirijanyan's explanations do not compel the opposite result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). The record does not support Mirijanyan's contention that the agency failed to fully consider her explanations or testimony. In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Finally, Mirijanyan's CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and she does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Armenia. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.