Case Name: Angela Vardanesi COCHARIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-28
Citations: 346 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 06-75753
Parties: Angela Vardanesi COCHARIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 346
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
Angela Vardanesi COCHARIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75753.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Sept. 28, 2009.
Angela Vardanesi Cocharian, Fresno, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Angela Vardanesi Cocharian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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 we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding based on an inconsistency between Cocharian's testimony and her declaration regarding where she was attacked in October 1998, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-43 (9th Cir.2007), and Cocharian failed to adequately explain this discrepancy when given the opportunity, Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (9th Cir.2005). Therefore, the IJ properly required Cocharian to corroborate her asylum claim, see Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2000), and she failed to do so. Accordingly, Cocharian's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.