NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEROB KOCHARYAN,

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 19-73117

Agency No. A215 680 316

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 3, 2021

**

Pasadena, California

Before: OWENS and LEE, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,

*** District Judge.

Petitioner Kerob Kocharyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, seeks review of 

a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Michael Howard Simon, United States District Judge for 

the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 9 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the 

petition for review.

We review agency denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 

CAT for substantial evidence. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 

2017). Under this standard, we must uphold the agency’s determination unless any 

reasonable trier of fact “would be compelled” to conclude to the contrary based on 

the evidence in the record. Villavicencio v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 658, 664 (9th Cir. 

2018) (citation omitted). Here, we conclude substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 

decision and deny Kocharyan’s petition. 

In removal proceedings before the Immigration Judge (IJ), Kocharyan 

testified that he fears he will be persecuted and/or tortured if removed to Armenia—

where he is a citizen—because his wife was raped by an Armenian oligarch when 

she was 16 years old and the man who committed the crime remains a powerful 

political figure in Armenia. Additionally, Kocharyan testified that two of his 

brothers were killed in Armenia during clashes between Armenians and 

Azerbaijanis, and that a few times he himself was the victim of “fights and beatings” 

because of his “Turk origins.” 

Kocharyan testified he also fears he will be persecuted and/or tortured if 

removed to Russia—where he lived from 2000 until he arrived in the United States 
3 

in 2018—because of his Armenian nationality and/or political opinions concerning

the Putin administration.

1. Asylum from Armenia. The agency determined Kocharyan was not eligible 

for asylum from Armenia because he was “firmly resettled” in Russia before arriving 

in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi). Kocharyan has waived 

review of this determination by failing to raise it “specifically and distinctly” in his 

opening brief before this Court. See Diego v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1005, 1015 n.4 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we deny Kocharyan’s petition to the 

extent it seeks review of his denial of asylum from Armenia. 

2. Withholding of removal as applied to Armenia. We also deny Kocharyan’s 

petition to the extent it seeks review of his denial of withholding of removal from 

Armenia. Because Kocharyan was able to travel to Armenia safely—almost 

annually between 2000 and 2018, and sometimes with his wife and children, to visit 

his parents who continue to reside there—substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 

determination that Kocharyan failed to establish it is “more likely than not” that he 

will face future persecution there. Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001)

(“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when 

similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident, 

or when the applicant has returned to the country without incident.” (internal 
4 

citations omitted)), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. 

Gonzalez, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

3. Asylum from Russia. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s 

denial of Kocharyan’s petition for asylum as applied to Russia. 

4. As to persecution because of Kocharyan’s nationality, substantial evidence 

supports the agency’s determination that Kocharyan failed to meet his burden of 

establishing that the Russian government is “unable or unwilling” to protect him. 

Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2005). During a 2005 

assault in which Kocharyan was a victim, the police detained Kocharyan’s 

assailants. And during a 2013 assault against Kocharyan, the police “calmed the 

situation down.” Although Kocharyan testified the police “smirk[ed]” while he was 

being attacked, delayed in rendering him aid, and told him Russia was “for 

Russians,” we conclude this evidence—and the record as a whole—does not compel 

a conclusion contrary to that reached by the agency.

5. As to persecution because of Kocharyan’s political opinions, substantial 

evidence supports the agency’s determination that Kocharyan failed to establish past 

persecution or a reasonable fear of future persecution. Kocharyan testified police 

used violence to disperse large crowds at protests Kocharyan attended. But 

Kocharyan failed to establish he had ever been singled out for mistreatment because 

of his political opinions, or that anyone is currently searching for him because of his 
5 

participation in anti-Putin demonstrations. Additionally, the single time Kocharyan 

was detained for protesting, he was unharmed and released from custody the next 

day. 

6. Withholding of removal as applied to Russia. Because substantial evidence 

supports the agency’s denial of asylum, we conclude substantial evidence also 

supports its denial of withholding of removal. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 

F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A petitioner who fails to satisfy the lower standard 

of proof for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for 

withholding of removal.”).

7. Protection under CAT as applied to Armenia and Russia. Lastly, because 

the BIA correctly and summarily concluded Kocharyan waived his CAT claims on 

appeal from the IJ, see Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1068-69 & n.8 (9th Cir. 

2019), Kocharyan’s administrative remedies have not been exhausted as to these 

claims and we lack jurisdiction to review them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 

674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.