
    Ruzanna Ashot SARGSYAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72851.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 8, 2016.
    
    Filed April 12, 2016.
    Reynold E. Finnegan, II, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Finnegan & Diba A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and DORSEY, District Judge.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jennifer A. Dorsey, District States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruzanna Sargsyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of a final order of .removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039, 1047-48 (9th Cir.2010).

Sargsyan’s inconsistent testimony about the alleged May 2004 assault and subsequent hospitalization provides substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the finding that Sargsyan did not satisfactorily explain the inconsistencies.

Nor does the remaining evidence in the record compel a finding that Sargsyan more likely than not would be tortured by the government or with its acquiescence if she returns to Armenia. See id. at 1048-49 (If the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, the remaining documents in the record must compel a finding of eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture).

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