
    Karine HARUTYUNYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-75083.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 17, 2012.
    Artem M. Sarian, Esquire, Melania Var-tanian, Esquire, Sarian Law Group, APLC, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Karine Harutyunyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to remand and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and findings of fact for substantial evidence, Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s denial of relief. Ha-rutyunyan’s testimony was inconsistent in many important respects with other evidence, including her prior statements. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2011) (“Material alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding.”). Harutyunyan lacked basic knowledge about the beliefs and activities of the organization she was allegedly persecuted for assisting. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004). And when asked to explain inconsistencies and to provide persuasive corroboration of her story, Harutyunyan failed to do so. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1091-92 (9th Cir.2000).

2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Harutyunyan’s motion to remand for consideration of evidence her attorney allegedly failed to present. Even assuming that Harutyunyan’s failure to comply with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), was excusable, she has not demonstrated prejudice from her counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003).

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