Case Name: Zilbert SIMONYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-27
Citations: 350 F. App'x 124
Docket Number: No. 06-73287
Parties: Zilbert SIMONYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 124–126

Head Matter:
Zilbert SIMONYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73287.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 27, 2009.
Apt. A, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jocelyn M. Lopez-Wright Fax, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Zilbert Simonyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his 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 adverse credibility determination, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's adverse credibility determination because Simonyan's statement during his port of entry interview that he did not fear harm from the Armenian government was inconsistent with his testimony that the government threatened him and the BIA could reasonably conclude that there was a valid discrepancy between the interview and Simonyan's testimony. See id. at 963 (9th Cir.2004).
Simonyan does not raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding the denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.