From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alexanian v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 17, 2005
134 F. App'x 205 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted June 14, 2005.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Tigran Alexanian, Glendale, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, John C. Cunningham, Esq., San Francisco, CA, Edward C. Durant, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.


On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Tigran Alexanian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ")

Page 206.

denial of his applications 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 an adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding. The IJ offered specific, cogent reasons for the decision based on inconsistencies between petitioner's testimony, asylum application, and statements to an immigration official, including regarding his reason for leaving Armenia and his description of the events leading up to his departure. See id. at 1043.

Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

In addition, substantial evidence supports the denial of relief under CAT. See id. at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Alexanian v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 17, 2005
134 F. App'x 205 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

Alexanian v. Gonzales

Case Details

Full title:Tigran ALEXANIAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, [*] Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 17, 2005

Citations

134 F. App'x 205 (9th Cir. 2005)