
    Knarik MKRTCHYAN; Samvel Mkrtchyan; Kristine Mkrtchyan, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Respondent.
    No. 08-71730.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
    Artem M. Sarian, Esquire, Sarian Law Group, APLC, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, NOONAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioners Knarik Mkrtchyan, Samvel Mkrtchyan, and Kristine Mkrtchyan, citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under article 3 of the Convention against Torture. The IJ found Petitioners’ claim incredible based on “significant discrepancies and inconsistencies” in their testimony. We find that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and deny the petition for review. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir.2007).

Knarik, the lead petitioner, asserted past persecution and fear of future persecution on account of her membership in the Armenian National Movement and related actions. The IJ correctly found that Knarik provided insufficient credible or specific evidence to show there is a reasonable possibility that either she or her husband Samvel would be subject to persecution in Armenia. See Immigration and Nationality Act, § 101(a)(42)(a), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(42)(A). There were numerous discrepancies in the testimony of both Knarik and Kristine, the only witnesses to testify. The discrepancies concerned significant facts going to the heart of their claims. Knarik testified inconsistently regarding the number of times she was detained by police and alleged threats made against her daughters, and Kristine testified inconsistently regarding her whereabouts during periods material to her claim.

Because the IJ cited specific reasons to doubt Petitioners’ credibility, this court finds that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. We therefore deny Petitioners’ petition for review.

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