Case Name: Alisa PILIPOSYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-13
Citations: 234 F. App'x 770
Docket Number: No. 05-72921
Parties: Alisa PILIPOSYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 770–771

Head Matter:
Alisa PILIPOSYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72921.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007.
Filed July 13, 2007.
Garbis N. Etmekjian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristin K. Edison, Esq., Michelle G. Latour, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alisa Piliposyan, a native of Romania and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") affirmance of an Immigration Judge's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's adverse credibility finding. Because petitioner contended that she was persecuted based on her Pentecostal faith, but demonstrated during her asylum interview that she was unfamiliar with a basic practice of her faith, i.e., the practice of speaking in tongues, her asylum claim fails. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that she is eligible for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir .2003).
Substantial evidence also supports denial of petitioner's CAT claim. See id. at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 316-3.