NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VARUZHAN BABKENY TATULYAN; No. 16-70028 BABKEN VARUZHANY TATULYAN, Agency Nos. A099-709-524, A099- Petitioners, 709-525 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 12, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, COOK,*** and OWENS, Circuit Judges. * 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 Deborah L. Cook, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. -1- Varuzhan Tatulyan and his son, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the denial of their asylum claims. Because substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination, we deny the petition. I. Before the IJ, Tatulyan testified that he discovered his employer exporting raw copper in violation of Armenian law and reported the lawbreaking to a local prosecutor. He testified that due to his report the Armenian police raided his home and unlawfully detained and beat him. Then, he explained, he and his wife received threatening phone calls, and plainclothes officers attacked him near his home. Tatulyan and his son fled Armenia for the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Relying on over 300 pages of testimony from Tatulyan and a supporting witness, the IJ denied the claims.1 The BIA dismissed Tatulyan’s appeal, and he petitions for review. II. We review the IJ’s decision “under the highly deferential ‘substantial evidence’ standard.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 1 As the BIA explained, Tatulyan’s asylum application “applies to his son[,]” who was a minor at the time of the application; their claims rise or fall together. -2- A. Asylum “An asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing his claim through credible evidence.” Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). In assessing an applicant’s credibility, an IJ must consider “the totality of the circumstances[.]” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation mark omitted). We uphold an IJ’s credibility determination “unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. The IJ found Tatulyan’s testimony not credible due to “numerous material inconsistencies and omissions.” As the IJ observed, Tatulyan testified inconsistently on whether Armenia criminalizes raw metal exports. For example, he initially stated that Armenia bans all such exports before testifying that companies may export with permission, and he could not identify which government agency grants such authorization. Tatulyan argued during his IJ hearing that the interpreter erroneously translated ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals