Case ID: f-appx_283/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Zhirik TER-GHAHRAMANYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70756.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 6, 2008.
    
    Filed June 23, 2008.
    Zhirik Ter-Ghahramanyan, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John D. Williams, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BEA, Circuit Judge, and HUFF, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The record doesn’t compel a finding of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). There was no evidence that petitioner was fired or that petitioner’s father’s death occurred “on account of ... religion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The treatment petitioner’s children received at school does not amount to persecution, which is “an extreme concept, marked by the infliction of suffering or harm ... in a way regarded as offensive.” Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (ellipsis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). The IJ therefore properly denied petitioner asylum. Consequently, petitioner is also necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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