NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN KARAPETYAN, AKA Hovanes No. 17-71223 Borozangyan; et al., Agency Nos. A077-997-828 Petitioners, A202-098-283 A202-098-284 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 7, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, BADE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Karen Karapetyan and Hermine Torosyan, husband and wife, and their minor daughter petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their * 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). 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 the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We review the agency’s adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence and apply the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1136–37 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). We deny the petition. 1. Considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, Alam, 11 F.4th at 1137, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Karapetyan and Torosyan did not testify credibly. The agency reasonably concluded that three aspects of Karapetyan’s testimony were implausible. First, the agency found it implausible that Karapetyan and Torosyan were singled out for harm based on their political views because at least “half of the city population” supported the Armenian National Congress (“ANC”), and Karapetyan was merely one of those supporters, rather than an active member of the party. Petitioners argue that Karapetyan “stood out” from other ANC supporters, but when asked why he was targeted by members of the Republican party, Karapetyan simply stated that he “was collecting some votes” for an ANC candidate and admitted that 2 “many other people” did the same. Second, the agency reasonably found it implausible that members of the Republican party started a fight with Karapetyan and Torosyan on election day in light of three news articles in the record. Petitioners insist that these articles “do not contradict, but rather support Mr. Karapetyan’s testimony.” Although Petitioners are correct that the articles suggest that voters were “pressured,” “threatened,” and “questioned,” the articles focus primarily on vote buying and election fraud, and there is no indication that ANC supporters were subjected to violent acts on election day. Third, the agency reasonably concluded that Karapetyan’s week-long trip to Russia in April 2012 undermined his testimony that he experienced past harm in Armenia. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals