United States v. 2020-12-14 | 19-70141 | VAHAGN ABRAHAMYAN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VAHAGN ABRAHAMYAN; LILYA
ABRAHAMYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70141
Agency Nos. A209-763-320
A209-763-319
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2020
**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SCHREIER,
***
District
Judge.

FILED
DEC 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
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 Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

Vahagn Abrahamyan and his daughter, Lilya Abrahamyan, natives and
citizens of Armenia, seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny
asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we
deny the petition for review.
The IJ based his adverse credibility determination on the implausibility of
Vahagn Abrahamyan’s testimony, which is a permissible basis for such a
determination, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Abrahamyan did not challenge the
IJ’s implausibility findings in his appeal to the BIA, and the BIA did not review
that issue on the merits. See Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir. 2011)
(explaining that the BIA may decline to review issue not raised on appeal).
Because Abrahamyan failed to exhaust this issue, we lack jurisdiction to review it.
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). The IJ also based his
adverse credibility determination on Vahagn Abrahamyan’s demeanor, which is
not only a permissible basis for such a determination, but is entitled to “special
deference.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting
2

Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999)).
1
Accordingly, the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Rizk v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011).
Abrahamyan argues, for the first time on appeal, that the IJ erred in failing to
afford Abrahamyan an opportunity to corroborate his testimony. This issue was
not exhausted before the BIA, and we lack jurisdiction to address it. Barron, 358
F.3d at 678.
On appeal, Abrahamyan fails to identify any evidence in the record, other
than his own non-credible testimony, that establishes that he is entitled to relief.
Therefore, this argument is waived. Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1091 n.3.
PETITION DENIED.
1
Abrahamyan also failed to exhaust his argument that the IJ erred in
considering Abrahamyan’s demeanor during other witnesses’ testimony.
Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review it in the first instance. Barron, 358 F.3d
at 678.
3