Case ID: f-appx_356/html/0924-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aida AVETISYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76385.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009 
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    James L. Rosenberg, Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Richard M. Evans, Susan K. Houser, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aida Avetisyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that even if Avetisyan were credible, she failed to establish past persecution because she did not demonstrate that the sexual harassment and assaults she experienced were on account of a protected ground, see id. at 1051-52, and she did not meet her burden of demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground if returned to Armenia, see Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 962-63 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

Because Avetisyan failed to establish asylum eligibility, it necessarily follows that she did not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id. at 965.

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.