Case Name: Armen SOGHBATYAN; Shushan Nersisyan, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-20
Citations: 604 F. App'x 592
Docket Number: No. 13-70673
Parties: Armen SOGHBATYAN; Shushan Nersisyan, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
Armen SOGHBATYAN; Shushan Nersisyan, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70673.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 20, 2015.
Sassoun Nalbandian, Nalbandian Law, A Professional Corporation, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
Oil, Margaret Kuehned Taylor, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN and M. 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
Armen Soghbatyan and Shushan Nersi-syan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying Soghbatyan's 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, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Soghbatyan's testimony and visa documents regarding his work history. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the "totality of circumstances"). The record does not support Soghbatyan's contention thát the IJ did not consider his explanations, and Soghbatyan's explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary conclusion, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Soghbatyan's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Finally, Soghbatyan's CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the BIA found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government 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.