Artak Ghulyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

MEMORANDUM ***

Artak Ghulyan, a thirty-four-year-old native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA’s”) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“U’s”) decision denying Ghulyan’s 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 an IJ’s “credibility findings under the deferential substantial evidence standard.” Kebede v. Ashcroft, 866 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We “accord special deference to an IJ’s credibility determination, and will only exercise our power to grant a petition for review when the evidence ‘compels a contrary conclusion.’ ” Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003)). However, Ghulyan filed his application for relief before May 11, 2005, the effective date of the REAL ID Act. Kaur, 418 F.3d at 1064 n. 1. The REAL ID Act significantly changed our review of an IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See id. (‘With the passage of the R[EAL] ID Act, our review of an IJ’s adverse…

dissenting in part.

I agree with the court that substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) determination that Ghulyan has failed to establish his eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Nevertheless, I respectfully dissent from the decision to remand this case to the BIA. Review of adverse credibility findings, even outside the REAL ID Act context, is extremely deferential. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2005) (court can only grant petition for review when “the evidence compels a contrary conclusion” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). The unreconciled inconsistency as to Ghulyan’s multiple, conflicting party membership cards is, on its own, enough to require upholding the BIA’s finding. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (“[S]o long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [the petitioner’s] claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).

Because this inconsistency went to the heart of his claim — which is premised on his membership in…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

ARTAK GHULYAN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

No. 08-71097 Petitioner, Agency Nos. A097-355-197 v.

MEMORANDUM*

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 7, 2012** Pasadena, California

Before: D. W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior District Judge.***

Artak Ghulyan, a thirty-four-year-old native and citizen of Armenia,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA’s”) order

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision…