Movsesyan

Movsesyan v. Ashcroft

Good Law
114 F. App'x 830
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 29, 2004No. 03-71633California260 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Seda Movsesyan, her husband, Matevos Alexandryan, and her son, Armond Alexandryan, are natives and citizens of Armenia. They petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which summarily affirmed the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a) and review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Movsesyan’s testimony and application contained substantial inconsistencies that go to the heart of her asylum claim, including inconsistencies about the events leading up to her departure from Armenia, the number of times her husband was detained, and details surrounding her harassment by government officials. See id. at 1043 . Because Movsesyan failed to demonstrate that she was eligible for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111…

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.