Avetisyan v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Avetisyan v. Gonzales

235 F. App'x 607

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 21, 2007

DocketNo. 05-75229

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 F. App'x 607 (Avetisyan v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avetisyan v. Gonzales, 235 F. App'x 607 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Samvel Avetisyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where it is unclear whether the BIA conducted a de novo review, we look to the IJ’s decision as a guide. See Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence, see Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Avetisyan’s omission from his asylum interview of the physical abuse that he claimed he suffered during his detention goes to the heart of his asylum claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, his asylum claim is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Samvel Avetisyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where it is unclear whether the BIA conducted a de novo review, we look to the IJ’s decision as a guide. See Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence, see Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Avetisyan’s omission from his asylum interview of the physical abuse that he claimed he suffered during his detention goes to the heart of his asylum claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, his asylum claim is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 F. App'x 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avetisyan-v-gonzales-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack