Case Summary
**Case Summary: Galstian v. Gonzales, Docket No. 04-70767**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Date:** Decided on February 6, 2006
**Background:**
The case presents a petition for review concerning the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)’s denial of a request for asylum and withholding of removal by the petitioner, Edward Galstian. Galstian, an Armenian national, claimed persecution based on his political opinion and ethnicity. He contended that he faced serious threats and violence from members of the government and other groups in Armenia due to his anti-government activities.
**Issues:**
1. Whether Galstian had established a credible fear of persecution.
2. The standards for proving eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal based on political opinion and ethnic persecution.
**Ruling:**
The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the BIA’s ruling, finding substantial evidence supporting the BIA’s conclusions that Galstian did not demonstrate a credible fear of persecution. The court determined that his claims were not sufficiently corroborated by evidence and lacked consistency, particularly concerning the events he recounted regarding threats and violence against him.
**Key Points:**
- The court noted that an applicant for asylum must show a well-founded fear of persecution based on the five protected grounds, including political opinion and ethnicity.
- The decision underscored the importance of credible and consistent testimony in asylum cases.
- The court also highlighted the need for substantial evidence to support claims of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
**Conclusion:**
Ultimately, the petition for review was denied, affirming the BIA’s decision to deny Galstian’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal due to insufficient evidence of persecution. This case reinforces the rigorous standards applicants must meet in proving their asylum claims in the face of potential persecution.