Simonyants

Simonyants v. Gonzales

Good Law
130 F. App'x 193
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 9, 2005No. 03-71557California308 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ****

Astgik Simonyants, her husband Armen Grigoryan, and their two minor children Zara Grigoryan and Gayane Grigoryan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We deny the petition.

Petitioners challenge only the BIA’s summary affirmance. Summary affirmance does not per se violate due process. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-51 (9th Cir.2003). A summary affirmance does not violate due process as applied if the IJ’s decision is sustainable on the merits. Id. at 853-55 . We review the IJ’s adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence and will uphold it unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Simonyants’ testimony was inconsistent with her application and with documentation of a well-known political event in Armenia at which Simonyants claimed to…

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.