Galustian v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Galustian v. Holder

361 F. App'x 738

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 28, 2009

Docket07-70613

StatusUnpublished

This text of 361 F. App'x 738 (Galustian v. Holder) 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

Galustian v. Holder, 361 F. App'x 738 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

*739 Anaida Galustian, a native of the former Soviet Union and a citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1253 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The forensic expert’s testimony and report provide substantial evidence to support the agency’s finding that Galustian submitted a false driver’s license. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004). Because the genuineness of this identity document went to the heart of Galustian’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id.; see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (characterizing identity as a key element of an asylum claim). In the absence of credible evidence, Galustian failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Galustian has failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *739 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

*739 Anaida Galustian, a native of the former Soviet Union and a citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1253 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The forensic expert’s testimony and report provide substantial evidence to support the agency’s finding that Galustian submitted a false driver’s license. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004). Because the genuineness of this identity document went to the heart of Galustian’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id.; see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (characterizing identity as a key element of an asylum claim). In the absence of credible evidence, Galustian failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Galustian has failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *739 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 F. App'x 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galustian-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack