Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0456-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alvard MKRTCHYAN; Lilit Mkrtchyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70224.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2010.
    Judith Seeds Miller, Law Office of David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioners.
    Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Trial, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alvard Mkrtchyan and Lilit Mkrtchyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Mkrtchyan’s brief detention and the threat she received rise to the level of past persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995) (minor abuse of Indo-Fijian during 4-6 hour detention did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Mkrtchyan’s fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because Mkrtchyan did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Mkrtchyan failed to show that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Armenia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

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