Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8645011
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Musayelyan v. Keisler
No. 8645011 · Decided November 1, 2007
No. 8645011·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 1, 2007
Citation
No. 8645011
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM *** Amalya Musayelyan and her minor daughter Anna Tadevosyan (as a derivative) seek review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here. Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the “final agency decision.” Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review the IJ’s decision under the substantial evidence standard; the IJ’s findings must be upheld unless the evidence compels a contrary result. See Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.2004). We review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination under the same standard, as long as the IJ has established a legitimate articulable basis to question the applicant’s credibility and offered “specific, cogent reasons for disbelief.” Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ supported her adverse credibility finding with specific reasons for disbelief, namely the inconsistencies between Ms. Musayelyaris testimony and that of her witness. The evidence in the record does not compel a contrary finding. Likewise, the IJ’s determinations that the abuse Ms. Musayelyan suffered did not constitute past persecution, and that Ms. Musayelyan did not have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, are supported by substantial evidence in the record. *634 Substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusion that Ms. Musayelyan is not eligible for asylum, entitled to withholding of removal, or eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture. PETITION DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM *** Amalya Musayelyan and her minor daughter Anna Tadevosyan (as a derivative) seek review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denial of asylum,
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM *** Amalya Musayelyan and her minor daughter Anna Tadevosyan (as a derivative) seek review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denial of asylum,
02Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.
03Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the “final agency decision.” Falcon Carriche v.
04We review the IJ’s decision under the substantial evidence standard; the IJ’s findings must be upheld unless the evidence compels a contrary result.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM *** Amalya Musayelyan and her minor daughter Anna Tadevosyan (as a derivative) seek review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denial of asylum,
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Musayelyan v. Keisler in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 1, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8645011 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.