Asatryan

MEMORANDUM *

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, and the record supports this finding, as petitioner’s testimony was inconsistent with his asylum application, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and implausible, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2007). Substantial evidence thus supports the finding that petitioner isn’t eligible for asylum, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B), so he is also necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal, see Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioner’s claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) fails because a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that it’s more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 (c)(2).

Even if we were to assume that the BIA didn’t affirm the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, petitioner wouldn’t be eligible for asylum, withholding of removal or CAT relief. A single beating incident that didn’t require hospitalization and didn’t cause petitioner to apply for asylum when he was previously in the United States, and vague threats don’t amount to persecution, see Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d…

concurring in the judgment.

I write separately to highlight the deficiencies in the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which lead me to conclude that the BIA did not affirm the adverse credibility determination of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The government concedes that the IJ denied relief in a decision that “turned on” an adverse, credibility determination. However, the BIA order gives no indication that it affirmed based on adverse credibility. The *625 BIA order states, “We agree that the respondent has not demonstrated eligibility for asylum and also affirm the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent has failed to establish grounds for granting the other forms of relief requested.” In support of this sentence, the BIA cites authorities that are entirely irrelevant to an adverse credibility determination.

First, the BIA cites 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B), the provision establishing the one-year filing deadline for asylum applications. The IJ’s decision makes no mention of this deadline because the petitioner’s application was timely.

Second, the BIA cites INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 , 107 S.Ct. 1207 , 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987), which held…