Case Name: Marine MANUKYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-27
Citations: 338 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 06-73902
Parties: Marine MANUKYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 338
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
Marine MANUKYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73902.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 27, 2009.
Garbis N. Etmekjian, Esquire, Law Offices of Garbis N. Etmekjian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
OIL, Deborah K. Snyder, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Marine Manukyan, Ruben Manukyan, and their son, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency's adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence, Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2002), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination because Manukyan's testimony was inconsistent with documentary evidence in the record with respect to her "whistle blowing" activities. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir.2007) (inconsisten- des between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim).
In the absence of credible testimony, Manukyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. 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.