Case ID: f-appx_111/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

Kajik TADEVOSYAN; Seda Aghababyan; Armine Tadevosyan, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70458.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 24, 2004.
    
    Decided Oct. 21, 2004.
    Paula N. Harris, Esq., Harris & Harris, LLP, Burbank, CA, for Petitioners.
    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, John D. Williams, Esq., Marion E. Guyton, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GOODWIN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kajik Tadevosayn and his family petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of the order denying their applications for asylum.

Petitioner’s due process challenge to the BIA’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-52 (9th Cir.2003).

The record does not compel any finding that petitioners face a well-founded fear of future persecution.

In failing to qualify for asylum, Tadevosayn necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n. 5. Because Tadevosayn presented no evidence that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to Armenia, the IJ properly rejected his claim under the Convention Against Torture. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001).

The petitions for review are DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.