Tsarukyan v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Tsarukyan v. Ashcroft

109 F. App'x 977

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 27, 2004

DocketNo. 03-71067

StatusPublished

This text of 109 F. App'x 977 (Tsarukyan v. Ashcroft) 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

Tsarukyan v. Ashcroft, 109 F. App'x 977 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Ashkhen Tsarukyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1999), and reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Tsarukyan’s credibility was undermined by inconsistencies in her testimony regarding her level of involvement in the Dashnack Party, the circumstances surrounding her June 1994 speech, as well as a doctor’s letter which was dated before she was allegedly beaten by police. Because these irregularities go to the heart of Tsarukyan’s asylum claim, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2001), the record does not compel a reversal, see Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481.

Because Tsarukyan failed to meet the less stringent requirements for asylum, it follows that she also failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), Tsarukyan’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal [979]*979and this stay mil expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

**

Ashkhen Tsarukyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1999), and reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Tsarukyan’s credibility was undermined by inconsistencies in her testimony regarding her level of involvement in the Dashnack Party, the circumstances surrounding her June 1994 speech, as well as a doctor’s letter which was dated before she was allegedly beaten by police. Because these irregularities go to the heart of Tsarukyan’s asylum claim, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2001), the record does not compel a reversal, see Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481.

Because Tsarukyan failed to meet the less stringent requirements for asylum, it follows that she also failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), Tsarukyan’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal [979]*979and this stay mil expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 F. App'x 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tsarukyan-v-ashcroft-ca9-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack