Case Name: Ruzan TARAKHCHYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-21
Citations: 235 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 04-70768
Parties: Ruzan TARAKHCHYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
Ruzan TARAKHCHYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70768.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 9, 2007.
Filed Aug. 21, 2007.
James M. Burgess, Esq., Valerie E. Alter, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Ruzan Tarakhchyan, Monterey Park, 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, Daniel G. Lonergan Fax, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding because there were several material inconsistencies between Tarakhehyan's testimony and her asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The IJ's finding that Tarakhchyan failed to establish her eligibility for asylum is therefore supported by the record. Tarakhchyan is also ineligible for withholding of removal, see Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003), and relief under the Convention Against Torture, see id. at 1157.
Because Tarakhchyan failed to raise the issue below, we lack jurisdiction to review her assertion that faulty translation undermined the administrative record. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
PETITION DISMISSED in part AND DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.