Case Name: Mayis ASATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-01
Citations: 272 F. App'x 624
Docket Number: No. 05-72516
Parties: Mayis ASATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 624–625

Head Matter:
Mayis ASATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72516.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 8, 2008.
Filed April 1, 2008.
Aris Artounians, Law Office of Ails Ar-tounians, Glendale, CA, Erik Andersen, Payne & Fears, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Petitioner.
Andrew Cowan, Lawrence S. Middleton, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Marshall Tamor Golding, Brooke M. Maurer, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The BIA affirmed the IJ's adverse credibility finding, and the record supports this finding, as petitioner's testimony was inconsistent with his asylum application, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and implausible, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2007). Substantial evidence thus supports the finding that petitioner isn't eligible for asylum, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), so he is also necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal, see Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioner's claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) fails because a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that it's more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
Even if we were to assume that the BIA didn't affirm the IJ's adverse credibility finding, petitioner wouldn't be eligible for asylum, withholding of removal or CAT relief. A single beating incident that didn't require hospitalization and didn't cause petitioner to apply for asylum when he was previously in the United States, and vague threats don't amount to persecution, see Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc), or torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.