Mkrtchyan

Mkrtchyan v. Mukasey

Good Law
281 F. App'x 716
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 5, 2008No. 04-75398California998 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The record supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, as petitioner’s testimo *717 ny was implausible. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2007). She couldn’t explain (1) how a soldier escaped after witnessing a general shooting another soldier, or (2) why she didn’t report government corruption to an opposition political party instead of the ruling government that had allegedly detained and beaten her. Substantial evidence thus supports the finding that petitioner isn’t eligible for asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B), so she 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 fails because a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that it’s more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 (c)(2).

PETITION DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Dissenting Opinion

Fletcher, J.

dissenting:

I conclude that the adverse credibility finding of the Immigration Judge (IJ) is not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, I would grant the petition and remand for further proceedings. I address only the two grounds that the majority identifies as forming a proper basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The other grounds identified by the IJ are equally without merit.

First, the IJ found petitioner Tsaghik Mkrtehyan not credible because she was “unable to account how Mr. [David] Menayan could have so successfully fled from the presence of an armed general, who was busy shooting in the direction of both Mr. [Artyom Avetisian] and Mr. Menayan.”

Petitioner knew first-hand of Avetisian’s injuries. She processed his paperwork at the military hospital to which he was transferred in Yerevan, where he subsequently died. When petitioner later went to Karabakh to investigate the circumstances surrounding Avetisian’s shooting, soldiers who had served with Avetisian told her about Menayan. She later met with Menayan’s father, who told her Menayan was hiding in Sochi. She then went to Sochi and met with Menayan, who recounted the events with General Manvel…

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.