Artur Hovhannisyan v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTUR HOVHANNISYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70263
Agency No. A095-764-520
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Artur Hovhannisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70263
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Hovhannisyan’s contention that his
detention impeded his ability to obtain supporting documentation because he raises
it for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-
78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the
agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on an inconsistency between Hovhannisyan’s testimony and declaration as
to his hospitalization after an alleged 2004 attack, and on inconsistencies and
omissions in Hovhannisyan’s two declarations as to the alleged attacks he suffered
in 2007 and 2008. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Hovhannisyan’s explanations
do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th
Cir. 2000). In this case, in the absence of credible testimony, Hovhannisyan’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70263
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Hovhannisyan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and Hovhannisyan does not point to any other
evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of
Armenia. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --