Khachatur Chobanyan v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KHACHATUR CHOBANYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71955
Agency No. A202-097-570
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 9, 2022**
Portland, Oregon
Before: SCHROEDER and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District
Judge.
Khachatur Chobanyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from an
* 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 John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition for review.
“We review . . . factual findings, including adverse credibility
determinations, for substantial evidence.” Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1123
(9th Cir. 2019). Under this standard, “administrative findings of fact are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
The BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, and that finding
is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The agency identified several
inconsistencies and vague responses in Chobanyan’s hearing testimony, most of
which are supported by the record and are “at the heart of” Chobanyan’s claim.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010). “Although
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim” to form
the basis of an adverse credibility determination, “when an inconsistency is at the
heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.” Id. at 1046–47. “[L]ook[ing] to
the ‘totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors,’” Alam v. Garland, 11
F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (last alteration in original) (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), the record here does not compel a contrary credibility
determination. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Chobanyan did not establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or
CAT protection through other evidence.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --