Armond Hovsepyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Armond Hovsepyan petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision, we deny the petition for review.

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

We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). Because the BIA summarily affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) through its streamlining procedures, we review the IJ’s decision. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 919 (9th Cir.2004). To the extent Hovsepyan argues these procedures violated his due process rights, we have already rejected that argument. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003). We also reject Hovsep-yan’s assertion that improper translation at his hearing violated due process. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir.2009) (noting petitioner must demonstrate prejudice from any claimed translation error).

To…