N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HAGOP SHAHIR IAN, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-70645 Age n c y No. A077-977-733
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : NOONAN a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SM ITH, C hie f Distric t Judge
. ** Pe titione r Ha gop Sha

hiria n, a native and c itiz e n of Arm e n ia , se e ks judic ia l
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of his a pplic ation for
a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). B e c a

use Shah iria

n file d his a

pplic ation prior to M a

y 11, 2005, 

# FIL ED D EC 24 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble W illia m E. Sm ith, C hie f Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of R hode Isla nd, sitting by

de signa t ion.the REAL ID Ac t doe s not gove rn this c a se . J ose ph v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 n.3 (9th C ir. 2010). Exe rc ising jurisdiction unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252, were vie w the B IA’ s fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e and que stions of la w de novo. Zhang v . Gonzale

s , 408 F.3d 1239, 1244 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny Shahiria n’ s pe tition for a sy lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l, but re m and his C AT c la im for furthe r proc e e dings. 1. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s a nd B IA’ s a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm i nation. Sha

hiria n’ s ina bility to re c a l l the spe c ific c onte n ts of the flie rs he
wa s ha nding out—

the ve ry flie rs tha t re sulte d in his al le ge d a

rre s t a nd pe rse c ution—goe s to thehe art of his politic a l a sy l um c la i m . Se e Li v . Ashc roft , 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha t the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation m

ust be uphe ld “ [s] o long a s one of the ide ntifie d grounds is supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e an d goe s to the he art of [the ] c l a im of pe rse c ution.” (e m

p ha sis a dde d)). Ac c ordingly , we ne e d not a ddre ss the IJ’ s othe r re a s ons for finding Sha

hiria n not c re dible , a

nd the a s y l um

c l a im is de nie d. 2. Shahiria

n ’ s fa ilure to e sta

blish a sy lum

e ligibility ne c e ssa

rily doom s his withholding of rem o v a l c la im
. Se e Pe dro-Mate o v . IN S , 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th C ir. 2000).

23. Shahiria n ’ s C AT c la im , howe ve r, still survive s. The IJ de n i e d this c la im on the ba sis of c re dibility a lone . B e c a

u se Shahiria

n only a ddre s se d

the c re d ibility finding on a

ppe a l, the B IA de e m e d the C AT c la im wa i ve d. C ontra ry to our pre c e de n t, the IJ did not e v a luate Shahiria n’ s C AT c la im inde pe nde ntly

by pa y ing a tte ntion to “ a ll e vide nc e re le v ant to the possibility of future torture , ” K

amalthas v . IN

S , 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th C ir. 2001), inc luding the c ountry

c o nditions re

port, se e Zhang v . Ashc roft , 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe r c uriam ). B e c a

use the IJ a llowe d his a dve rse c re dibility finding to “

wa sh
ove r the torture c la i m ,” Taha v
. Ashc roft , 389 F.3d 800, 802 (9th C i r. 2004) (pe r c uriam ), we re m and for a prope r de te rm i nation of Sha hiria n’ s e ligibility

for C AT
re lie f, se e Mihale v

v . Ashc roft , 388 F.3d 722, 731 (9th C ir. 2004), a nd re je c t the gove rnm e nt’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t Sha hiria n wa ive d the issue be l ow. Sha hiria n’ s brie f to the B IA e xplic itly

sta te d tha t he wa s a ppe a l ing the IJ’ s de nia l of his a pplic ation for
a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d C AT re l ie f. That

wa s suffic ie nt to pre se rve the i ssue for a

ppe a l. Se e Zhang , 388 F.3d a t 721. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; RE M A NDE D. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts.

3