FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8643248
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Davtyan v. Gonzales

No. 8643248 · Decided July 30, 2007
No. 8643248 · Ninth Circuit · 2007 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 30, 2007
Citation
No. 8643248
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Tiran Davtyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition. Substantial evidence support’s the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (“[W]hen the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.”). The IJ pointed to numerous “specific, cogent” discrepancies and omissions that went “to the heart of petitioner’s claim.” Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004). Petitioners’ testimony regarding the contents of a police report, the timing of threatening phone calls, and their reasons for attending a protest are either implausible or are contradicted elsewhere in the record. The record also supports the IJ’s finding that petitioners embellished their claim by adding substantial and previously omitted details to their testimony as the case proceeded. The repeated and significant inconsistencies in petitioners’ testimony deprive their claim of the requisite “ring of truth.” Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.2005). The IJ specifically and cogently referred to aspects of petitioners’ demeanor that further undermine their credibility. See Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir.2003). Because Davtyan is ineligible for asylum, he necessarily fails to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Because Davtyan’s claim under the CAT is based on the same evidence as his asylum claim, he is ineligible for CAT relief as well. Id. at 1156-57 . PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. . Davtyan’s wife, Laura Barseghyan, has filed a derivative asylum petition. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Tiran Davtyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief un
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Tiran Davtyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief un
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Davtyan v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 30, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8643248 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →