Barsegian

Barsegian v. Gonzales

Good Law
128 F. App'x 633
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 26, 2005Nos. 03-71300California626 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Karapet Barsegian, a native and citizen of Armenia, and his wife Mari Mkhitarian, *635 a native of Syria and citizen of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the transitional rules apply, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897 , 899 n. 2 (9th Cir.2004) (order). We review the IJ’s factual findings — including its credibility findings — and its determination of an applicant’s eligibility for asylum, for substantial evidence. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)). The substantial evidence standard is highly deferential and this court will not overturn the IJ’s decision unless evidence compels a reversal. See Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1042 . We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility decision. Barsegian’s testimony regarding his membership in the A.I.M. political…

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.