ANAHIT GEVORKYAN and VAHAG VARDANYANTS v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANAHIT GEVORKYAN and VAHAG
VARDANYANTS,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72535
Agency Nos. A096-491-495
A096-491-496
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Anahit Gevorkyan and Vahag Vardanyants, natives and citizens of Armenia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
petitioners’ appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
* 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).
FILED
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 11-72535
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility
findings. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Gevorkyan’s prior submission of a fraudulent asylum application and
documents, her false testimony during an asylum interview, and the inconsistencies
regarding the neighbor who persecuted Gevorkyan. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365
F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004) (adverse credibility finding supported where
fraudulent documents and material inconsistencies in testimony went to
the heart of the claim); see also Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir.
2011) (“[L]ies and fraudulent documents when they are no longer necessary for the
immediate escape from persecution do support an adverse inference.”).
Gevorkyan’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Gevorkyan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 11-72535
agency found not credible, and Gevorkyan does not point to any evidence that
compels the finding it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Armenia. See id. at
1156-57.
We do not consider petitioners’ due process contention. See Lopez-Vasquez
v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised
and argued in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --