Baghdasaryan

Baghdasaryan v. Holder

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 13, 201005-72416California3,702 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The BIA found Baghdasaryan to be credible. Accordingly, we must accept Baghdasaryan’s testimony as true. See Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Testimony must be accepted as true in the absence of an explicit adverse credibility finding.”). 1 We do not reach the CAT claim, which the parties did not fully brief and the BIA summarily dismissed. BAGHDASARYAN v. HOLDER 939 In Armenia, Baghdasaryan operated a small business mak- ing and distributing audio tapes from his home. In September 1995, Baghdasaryan moved his business to a store in a local market owned by General Hakopian, a well-known general at the Ministry of Defense, who later became a deputy of the National Assembly. The market was similar to a swap meet, with hundreds of vendors selling items in a large area. Bagh- dasaryan obtained the proper permit to sell his goods, paid tax on his sales, and remitted rent to General Hakopian for use of his space in the market. The record does not show whether General Hakopian was entitled to keep the entire amount of rent payments for himself.

One month later, Samvel Hakopian (“Samvel”), General Hakopian’s nephew,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.