
    Sarkis NORDIKYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-75032.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 5, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 7, 2012.
    Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sarkis Nordikyan appeals from the IJ and BIA’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny his petition.

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. Nordikyan rested his first asylum application on fear of future persecution on account of his membership in a political party, but later testified that he feared persecution on account of being a Jehovah’s Witness and that he had not been a member of any political party. Although given an opportunity to explain this inconsistency, which went to the heart of his asylum claim, Nordikyan failed to do so. Because at least “ ‘one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [the alien’s] claim of persecution,’ ” we must uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003)).

The IJ’s determination that Nordikyan lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution was also supported by substantial evidence, including the State Department Country Report, which is “ ‘perhaps the best resource for information on political situations in foreign nations,’ ” Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d 902, 906 (9th Cir.1995)), and other reports documenting that Jehovah’s Witnesses face some discrimination, but not persecution, in Armenia, cf. Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). The one newspaper article on which Nordikyan relies does not undercut this evidence.

Both the IJ and the BIA expressly considered and rejected Nordikyan’s request for protection under CAT. Accordingly, Nordikyan’s due process claim is not well taken.

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