Muradyan v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Muradyan v. Holder

373 F. App'x 673

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 2010

Docket07-74725

StatusUnpublished

This text of 373 F. App'x 673 (Muradyan 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

Muradyan v. Holder, 373 F. App'x 673 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Armen Muradyan (“Muradyan”), a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering him removed to Armenia. We have jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny Mura-dyan’s petition.

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

I

The BIA’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir.2008). We uphold the BIA’s decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).

II

The BIA’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. The hearing transcript contains numerous examples of Muradyan’s elusive, confused and incoherent responses to the IJ’s questions. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that courts “give ‘special deference’ to a credibility determination that is based on demeanor”). Likewise, Muradyan’s testimony about his involvement in the election was notably inconsistent, as he offered several conflicting descriptions of his participation. Additionally, Muradyan’s testimony regarding the nature of the $500 payment he received contradicted his earlier representations about that payment that he made in his declaration. See Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir.1992) (noting that significant inconsistencies between the asylum application and testimony support an adverse credibility finding).

In the aggregate, these considerations provide substantial evidence for the BIA’s adverse credibility finding.

DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Armen Muradyan (“Muradyan”), a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering him removed to Armenia. We have jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny Mura-dyan’s petition.

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

I

The BIA’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir.2008). We uphold the BIA’s decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).

II

The BIA’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. The hearing transcript contains numerous examples of Muradyan’s elusive, confused and incoherent responses to the IJ’s questions. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that courts “give ‘special deference’ to a credibility determination that is based on demeanor”). Likewise, Muradyan’s testimony about his involvement in the election was notably inconsistent, as he offered several conflicting descriptions of his participation. Additionally, Muradyan’s testimony regarding the nature of the $500 payment he received contradicted his earlier representations about that payment that he made in his declaration. See Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir.1992) (noting that significant inconsistencies between the asylum application and testimony support an adverse credibility finding).

In the aggregate, these considerations provide substantial evidence for the BIA’s adverse credibility finding.

DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 F. App'x 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muradyan-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack