Case Name: Eloyam VAKHTANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-30
Citations: 320 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 05-72400
Parties: Eloyam VAKHTANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
Eloyam VAKHTANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72400.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 30, 2009.
Eloyan Vakhtang, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Kristin A. Cabral, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eloyan Vakhtang, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination because inconsistencies regarding the length of time Vakhtang served in the military and the date he allegedly was conscripted by force go to the heart of his claim. See id. at 741-43. Accordingly, Vakhtang's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Vakhtang does not raise any substantive arguments in his opening brief regarding the agency's denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) ("Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.