Case ID: f-appx_265/html/0515-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sargis NIKOGHOSYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73560.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
    Victoria Bezman, Law Offices of Victoria Bezman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Margaret Taylor, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sargis Nikoghosyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The record does not compel a finding that Nikoghosyan’s alleged persecutors actually imputed a political opinion to him, see id. at 1489, or that they acted on account of an imputed political opinion rather than with a criminal intent. See id. at 1486-87. Substantial evidence therefore supports the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

Nikoghosyan did not raise his claim for CAT protection before the BIA and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions regarding CAT relief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

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