Case ID: f-appx_510/html/0521-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Artour DANIELIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73014.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 20, 2013.
    Bob Platt, Esquire, Law Office of Bob Platt, Granada Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Stefanie N. Hennes, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Danielian hasn’t established that the evidence compels reversal. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1998). The events Danielian described didn’t rise to the level of persecution. Persecution doesn’t include every sort of treatment our society regards as unjust or offensive. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 1996). Nor did Danielian present “credible, direct, and specific evidence” to support his fear of future persecution. Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir.1999).

Because Danielian hasn’t met the standard for asylum, he can’t meet the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal. Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005). In addition, “substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial for relief under” the Convention Against Torture because Danielian hasn’t presented evidence that it is “more likely than not” that he will be tortured if returned to Armenia. Id.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition isn’t appropriate for publication and isn't precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.