NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AVETIK GRIGORYAN, No. 17-70391 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-483-066 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 7, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: CLIFTON and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,*** District Judge. Avetik Grigoryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the immigration judge’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 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 the agency’s adverse credibility determinations and its denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the Petition. The BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence in light of “specific and cogent reasons” offered by the BIA. Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). First, Grigoryan gave a shifting account regarding his decision to apply for asylum. Grigoryan initially testified that his fear of returning to Armenia and his decision to apply for asylum did not arise until September 2007—several months after his arrival in the United States—when his sister called and speculated that he could be arrested if he returned to the country. But when the IJ pressed Grigoryan to address a logical inconsistency in this account, Grigoryan revised his story, asserting that he “always” feared returning to Armenia, but did not decide to apply for asylum until March 2008, after several protesters were killed during a demonstration in the country. This “evolving story” as to the “timeframe[] and circumstances” in which Grigoryan first feared returning to Armenia and decided to apply for asylum casts doubt on the veracity of his account, and thus, it was “reasonable that the IJ would conclude these changes reflected poorly on [his] 2 credibility.” Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 749–50 (9th Cir. 2022). Second, Grigoryan gave an evolving account regarding a photograph he had submitted as evidence. Grigoryan initially testified that the submitted photograph was taken by him shortly after he was released from police custody in May 2007. He separately confirmed that there “was no snow” and the trees had “bloomed” by that time of year in Armenia. But when asked to explain why the photograph shows a snow-covered road lined with leafless trees, Grigoryan gave a new account of the photograph’s provenance, asserting that his wife had taken the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals