Case ID: f-appx_291/html/0825-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Knarik AVAGYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71744.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 4, 2008.
    Alex Markman, Esq., Markman & Royle, San Diego, CA, Knarik Avagyan, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Amy S. Howe, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Knarik Avagyan a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that extraordinary circumstances or changed circumstances excused Avagyan’s untimely filing of her asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.2007).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because the harms Avagyan suffered, including harassment, job discrimination and two isolated beatings do not amount to past persecution, see Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-17, and Avagyan failed to establish a clear probability of persecution on account of her religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness in Armenia, see Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002).

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