The Honor able Ave rn Cohn, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0463n.06 F iled: Jun e 29, 2007 No. 06-3053 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
SVETL ANA SEDRAKYA N, Petitioner,

v. AL B ERT O G ON Z AL ES, Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF D ECI SI ON OF BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: COLE an d McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and COH N, Distric t Judge. * McK EAGU E, Circuit Judge. Pe tit ion e r Sve tla na Se dr a ky an cla ims e lig ibi lity fo r a sylum , withholding of r emoval, and r elief unde r the United N ations Convention Ag ainst Torture and Other Cruel, I n h u m an o r D egr ad i n g T re at m en to r P u n i s h m en t , 1 4 6 5 U. N. T
. S
. 8 5 , 2 3 I
. L
. M
. 1 0 2 7 (“ C AT”). The I m m i gra t i o n J udg e (the “I J ”) de nied her claims, and the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (the “B I A”) aff

irmed. Sedraky an appeals t he denial of her claims, as well as t he I J ’s denial of her motion for a continuance and the B I A’s summary aff irmance

. Sedraky an’s a

ppeal is not well take n. She failed to pursue sever al of he r ar g uments befor e th e B I A ; b e c a

u s e o f th is , w e d o n o t h a v e ju r is d ic ti o n to r e v ie w th o s e ar g u me n ts. A s for theNo. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

An alter

nate spe lling of the cit y i s “E revan.” Wikipedia, Yer evan, at 1 http:// en.wikipedia.or g /wiki/Yereva n (l a st vis ite d J un e 20 , 2 00 7) . Se dr a ky an u se d b oth sp e lli ng s in her pe tition. - 2 - arguments she did pursue be low, Sedraky an has f ailed to show that the boa rd’s de cision was not ba se d o n s ub sta

nti a l e vid e nc e . A c c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m.

I Se dr a ky an, a g e 53 , wa s bor n in Ge or g ia , but is an e thn ic Ar me nia n. He r famil y

le ft Ge or g ia for Moldova w hen Sedra

ky an was five y ear s old. She gr aduate d from the Tira spol St ate Peda g og ical I nstitut e with a tea ching deg ree in Russi an L ang uag e and L iterature . S h e m arried an Ar menian citizen in 1977 and moved to Armenia. She is cur rently an Ar menian citizen. Both of Sedr aky an’s pa

rents live in Yer evan, A rmenia. Her fathe r wa s a military

pilot who 1 is n ow re tir e d an d re c e ive s a go ve rnme nt pe ns ion

. She ha s a dau g hte r wh o live s w ithhe r p a re nts , and a son w ho is a member of the Arme nian military . Sedraky an’s da ug hter moved in with her pare nts after

some “hoolig ans” br oke into the apa rtment wher e her

daug hter lived. Ac c o r d i n g

t o S e d r a ky an, the Ar

me nia n g ov e rnme nt t arg e te d h e r d ue to h e r p oli tic a l op ini on s. Specifica lly , she points to three e vents of past pe rsec ution. I n 1996, she g ave a speec h at a political demons t ra tion. At some point during the de monstration, a g overnme nt official wa s hit with an umbrella. Af

ter the de monstration, the police in Yer evan took Sedr aky an into custody as a suspe ct in the assault. I n the cour se of her custody , she was beate n and rec eived a head injury . She ref

used to confe ss and was r elea sed without char g e two day s later.No. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

Th e me ssa g e s are sim ila

r. On e re a ds : 2 Sony a Ha ik! Alert y our mother Svetlana, not to come ba ck to Arme nia. - 3 - I n 1998, Sedraky an wa s forc ed to leave her job a s a schooltea cher . Her school was used a s
a po lli ng c e nte r fo r the pr e sid e nti a l ele c tio n tha t spr ing

. She e xpla ine d th a t sh e re fu se d p re ssu re to fa lsi fy the e le c tio n r e su lts , a

nd wa s f or c e d o ut a s a

re su lt. I n 2000, Sedraky an aga in spoke at a poli tical demonst ration. The poli ce in Yer evan took he r int o cu sto dy “ on ly fo r a fe w hours ” a ft e r t he de mon str a tio n. She did no t te sti fy

that th e y ph y sic a lly be a t he r, alt ho ugh in he r p e tit ion sh e do e s st a te that th e y

did . T he y

tol d h e r t hat sh e be lon g e d in Ge or g ia (t he c ountr y of he r b ir th) and wa s n ot t o p art ic ipate in a ny mor e de mon str a tio ns . She left Arme nia for the Unit ed S tates i n November 2000. She arr ived as a nonimmigra

nt vis ito r fo r ple a sure wi th a uth or iza tio n to sta

y un til Ma

y 21 , 20 01
. She ov e rs tay e d he r vis a a nd , in November

2001, filed an application for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and re lief under CAT. The former I mmigration and Natura liz ation Servi ce soug ht to remove he r for rema ining in the United St a te s b e y o n d a

u th o r iz a ti o n . Se dr a ky an a d mi tt e d th e a ll e g a ti o n s in th e n o ti c e to a p p e ar a nd
c o n c e d e d r e m o v a b i l i t y. After sever al continuanc es and a chang e of venue, a merits hear ing w as held on Mar ch 23, 2004, befor e I mmigration J udg e J oan C hurchill. I n addition to the i ncidents t hat occurre d while she was in Arme nia, Sedraky an also submitt ed evidenc e of two anony mous thre ats ag ainst her a nd her daug hter, as we ll as the rec ent depor tation of a lea der of

a political movement, Alkide Va cany an. 2No. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

and it will be better if you too, ge t away f r o m t h i s p l a c e . T h e d an g e r g r a d u a l l y I s g etting big g er, a

nd could bec ome an Ex ploding da

ng er. Well-wisher - 4 - She further

testified about a bomb plante d under the car of a person named P etro Mger , the cha irman
o f t h e G r e p u n i S o c i e t y. The I J conclude d that Sedraky an h ad not s hown that she wa s a re fug ee a nd denied he r petition. The BIA af

firmed the I J ’s dec ision. S edra ky an no w p et i t i o n s for review of the B I A’s decision.

II A. P etitioner ’s Claim s on Review Sedraky an ar g ues that the I J made se vera l reve rsible er rors. I n her f

irst claim, she conte nds t h a ts h e d i d

n o tr e c e i v e a

f u l l an d f a i r h e ar i n g i nv i o l a t i o n o f h e r r i g h tt o d u e p r o c e s s . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, sh e ra ise s se ve ra l pu

rp or te d p ro ble ms, inc lud ing : ( 1) the I J re fu se d to co nt inu e the he ari ngun til Se dr a ky an ’ s n e w a t t o r

n e y c o u l d p art i c i p a t e ; ( 2 ) t h e I J i n t e r r u p t e d h e r t e s t i m o n y

o nm u lti ple
occa sions; ( 3 ) th e tr an s lato r w a s n o t i nth e s a me r o o m w it h e it h e r Se dr a ky ano r

th e I J; ( 4 ) the translator w as not proper ly sworn; (5) there are a lar g e number of “indisce rnible” r efe renc es in the transcr ipt; (6) the I J applied undue pr essure on Sedraky an to testify without a translat or at seve ral po int s in the he ari ng ; and

(7 ) d oc ume nts we re e ith e r l os t or ig no re d by the I J. I n h e r s e c on d c la im, Se dr a ky an a

rgue s th a t th e I J shou ld n ot have g ra nte d he r pr ior c ouns e l’ s mot ion to wi thd ra w b e c a us eNo. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 5 - it was proce durally

defe ctive. She asse rts that the I J failed to g ive her adequate notice of the g ranting of the motion to withdraw. She also a rg ues that her

own pro se repr esentation was so defic ient as to deny her a fair hear ing. These error s amounted to a denial of due process, a ccor ding to Petitioner. In h e r t h i r d c l a i m , s h e a s s e rt s t h a tt h e IJ ’ s d e c i s i o n w a s n o t b a s e d o ns u b s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e . L a s t l y, she ra ises a number

of other a rg uments pertaining to her request for withholding of remova l and her CA T c la im. I n r e sp on se , th e Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l po int s o ut t

hat Se dr a ky an fa ile d to r a ise se ve ra l of the se issues befor e the BIA. On the issues proper ly prese nted to the B I A, the Attorne y Gene ral a rg ues that the I J and the B I A did not err.

B. Exhau stion of

Adm inis trat ive Rem edies Be fore raising an issue in fe dera l court, a pe titioner seeking relief under the immi g ration laws must pre sent the issue to the B I A if that body has the a uthority to reviewit. Sterkaj v. G onzales , 439 F .3 d 2 73 , 2 79 (6 th Cir . 200 6) . A pe tit ion e r i s r e qu ir e d to “ e xplic itl y ide nti fy the g ro un ds ” fo r a

pp e a l. Cse k ine k v . I NS , 3 91 F .3 81 9, 82 3 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 4) . Sp e c if

ic a lly , 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3. 3( b) re qu ir e s: The pa rty taking the appe al must identify the re asons for the appea l in the Notice of Ap pe a l [to the B I A] ( F or m E OI R- 26 or

F or m E OI R- 29 ) or

in a ny a tta c hme nts there to, in order to avoid s u m m ar y dismiss al pursuant to § 1003.1(d) (2)( i). The statement must specifica lly identify the findi n gs o f fact, the conc lusions of law, or both, that are bein g challeng ed. I f a que stion of law is prese nted, supporting a uth or ity mus t be c ite d. I f t

he dis pu te is ove r the fi nd ing s of f a c t, t he sp e c if ic fa c ts contested must be identifie d. W h er e the appeal c oncer ns discretionar

y relief , the appellant must state whe ther the a lleg ed er ror r elates to s t atut ory

g rounds of elig ibilit y or to the exercise of discre tion and must identify the spec ific fa ctual and leg al finding or finding s that are being challeng ed.No. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 6 - I t is not sufficient to raise a revie wable issue only

in the notice of a

ppeal f iled with the BIA; the issue
mu s t a ls o b e d e v e lo p e d in th e p e ti ti o n e r ’ s brief. Has an v . A sh c ro ft , 397 F.3d 417, 420 ( 6th Cir. 2005). I f a petitioner does not exhaust her administrative re medies on a pa rticular issue, that issue is deemed w aived. Id . at 41 9- 20 ; s e e a l s o R a m a n i v . A s h c r o

ft , 378 F.3d 554, 560 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (holding “that only

claims proper ly

p re s en t ed to the BIA and c onsidered on the ir merits ca n be revie wed b y th is c o u rt in an im mi g r a ti o n a p p e a l” )

. “ [T ]h is r e qu ir e me n t o f e xh a u s tion of administrative re medies as a prer equisite to jurisdiction in t he fe dera l court of a ppeals is a c reature of st atute, namely

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), a

nd not a cour

t-cre ated doc trine.” Hasan , 397 F.3d at 420 (c i t i n g Ramani , 378 F.3d at 559). Whil e c onst it ut io nal is su es ar e general ly no t r evi ewab le b y

th e BI A, s om e du e -p ro c e ss c la ims alleg ing proce dural err ors are re v i ew able. Sterkaj , 439 F.3d at 279. I f, for example, a petitioner g rounds a due-pr ocess claim on “cor rec table proc edura l error s,” the lawrequire s that the petitioner prese nt those err ors to the BIA befor e coming to fede ral c ourt. Id .; see also Cela v. G onzales , 205 F. App’ x 376, 384-85 (6th Cir. 2006) (e x plai n i n gthat the cour t lacked jur isdiction to review the petitioner’s due -proc ess claims i nvolving inadequate or faulty interpre tation beca

use the pe titioner failed to e x haust his administrative reme dies). The e x haustio n re q u irement is fatal to severa l of Sedrakyan’s a rg uments. Review of he r notice of a

ppeal to the B I A and h er s u p p orting brief show s that she did not raise a ny of her due-pr ocess a

rg uments about problems with the t ranslator (issues (3) - (6) of her first claim, su pr a ),
no r d id s he ra ise the purp or te d pro c e dura l irr e g ula

ri tie s sur ro un din g he r pr ior

c ouns e l’ s mo tio n to wi thd ra w ( he r s e c on d c la im) . Wh ile Se dr a ky an d id r e fe r t o s e ve ra l in sta nc e s o f t ra ns la ti o n p r o b l e m s,No. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 7 - she did so in the context of her ar g uments that the I J interrupted he r and c aused the hear ing to be dis joi nte d. At

no po int did sh e a llu de to pr ob le ms ca us e d by the tr ans la

tor be ingin a dif fe re nt r oo m, by problems with the t ranslator which infected the e ntire hea ring , or by the I J placingundue pre ssure
on he r t o s pe a k E ng lis h. No r d id s he ra ise any pr ob le ms w iththe pr oc e dure s u se d by th e I J in pe rm itt inghe r p ri or

c ouns e l to wi thd

ra w. Whe n p re pa

ri ng he r br ie f to the B I A, Pe tit ion e r h a d a c c e ss to the transcr ipt and the ad m i nistrative re cord, a nd there fore had no basis for not pursuing the

ar g u m e n t s b e f

o r e t h e b o ar d

. A l l o f

t h e s e a l l e g e d

e r r o r s c o u l d

h a v e b e e nc o r

r e c t e d b y t h e B IA b y, for e x ample, orde ring a new hear ing; a s such, the l aw re q u i red he r to prese nt those issues to that board be fore bring ing the m here . Acc ording ly , her failure to exhaust her administrative re medies ha s le ft us wi tho ut j ur isd ic tio n to re vie w the me ri ts o f t he se iss ue s. Sedraky an did r aise her third claim and the rema ining arguments of her f irst claim befor e the B I A. We n owtur

n o ur a tte nti on to t he me ri ts o f t

ho se argume nts
.

C. Stand ard of Review The B I A re

jected Sedraky an’s c laims that the I J err ed by denying he r re quest for a continuance , ignor ing doc uments, and fa iling to weig h the evidenc e prope rly . I t did so by adopting the I J’s r e a so nin g a s it s o wn and a dd ingthe fo llo wi ngc omm e nt: As su min g the re sp on de nt’ s c re dib ili ty , w e a g re e that th e tr e a tme nt s he re c e ive d d id not rise to the level of

perse cution and that the respondent has not met her burde n of proof to show e ligibility for relief

. The re spondent also asser ts that the I mmigration J udg e er red in not g ranting her a continuance to obtain couns el

. I n light of the previous continua n ces in the c ase a nd the evidenc e that the r espondent ha d five months withi n which to obtain new c ounsel afte r her previous counse l withdrew, we find no err or.No. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 8 - In re: Svetlana Sedrak

yan , N o . A 7 9

- 6 0 2

- 3 8 8 , s l i p o p . a t1 ( B IAD e c . 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 )

. W h e nt h e B IA adopts the I J ’s re asoning as its own, but makes an a dditional comment, we “dir ectl y revie w the decision of the I J ” as the BIA’s own, “while [also] considering the additional comment made by the BIA.” Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 283 ( 6th Cir. 2005). L eg al deter

minations made by

the B I A or I J are revie wed de novo , while fa ctual finding s are revie wed unde r t he def

ere ntial “substantial evidenc e” sta ndard. Mi k

ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 38 8 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 8) . The de te rm inatio n o f w he the r a n a lie n q ua lif ie s a s a re fu g e e wi ll b e up he ld s o long a s it is “supported by rea sonable, substantial, and pr obative evide nce on the rec ord consider ed

a s a wh ole ,” and

the de te rm inatio n w ill be re ve rs e d o nly if the c ourt fi nd s tha t the e vid e nc e c omp e ls a diffe rent re sult. Ramaj v. Gonzales , 4 6 6 F. 3 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)).

D. Due P r oc e ss Se dr a ky an a

rgue s th a t th e I J d e nie d he r du e pr oc e ss b y re fu sin g to c on tin

ue the he ari ngun til he r n e w atto rn e y

c ou ld p art ic ipate , inte rr

up tin g he r t e sti mony

se ve ra l ti me s, fa ili ngto l oc a te los t documents, and ig noring other doc uments. I n reje cting h er fi rs t ar gument, the B I A noted that Se dr a ky an h a d s e ve ra l e arl ie r c on tin ua nc e s and ha d f ive mon ths to f

ind ne w co un se l. Th e B I A d id
no t sp e c if ic a lly dis c us s h e r o the r a

rgume nts
. Whe the r t o g ra

nt a c on tin ua nc e is le ft to t

he dis c re tio n o f t

he I J. 8 C. F .R. § 1 00 3. 29 . A s th is court ha s expl ained, “ [t ]he failure to be g rante d discretionar y relief does not amount to a deprivation of a liber ty interest.” Hu ic oc he a- Go me z v . I NS , 2 37 F .3 d 6 96 , 7 00 (6 th Cir

. 20 01 ) (ci te d inNo. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 9 - Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales , 436 F.3d 627, 635 ( 6th Ci r. 2006)). Thus, Sedr aky an does not have a viable substantive due- proce ss claim based on the I J ’s denial of the continuanc e. Nor do the pur

ported e rror s outlined by S ed ra ky an amount to a de nial of proc edura l due p ro ce s s . An al i en fa ci n g re m o v al i s e n t i t l e d t o d u e p ro ce s s , i n cl u d i n g a f u l l an d fa i r h ea ri n g. Zad v y da s v . D av is , 5 33 U. S. 6 78 , 6 93 -94 (200 1) . T he I J re ta ins , h ow e ve r, “ br oa d d isc re tio n in conductingthat hear ing.” Cas te lla no -C ha c on v . I

NS , 3 4 1 F.3d 533, 553 ( 6th Cir. 2003). A due-pr ocess violation occ urs only when “ the proc eedingwas so funda mentally unfair that the alien
wa s preve nted from r easona bly prese nting his ca se.” Hassan v. Gonzales , 4 0 3 F
. 3 d 4 2 9 , 43 6 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Lad

ha v . I NS , 2 15 F .3 d 8 89 , 904 (9 th C ir . 2 00 0) ). “ F or a pe tit ion e r t o p re va il on a due pr ocess c laim, [ she] must demonstrate not only error, but also ‘substantial p re j u d i ce ’– namely

that the alleg ed violation aff ecte d the outcome of

the proc eeding .” Herme

z v. Gonzales , N o . 0 5
- 4 5 5 5 , 2 0 0 7 WL 9 3 0 4 1 5 , a t * 2 ( 6 th

Ci r . M ar . 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( u np u b li s h e d ) ( quoting Gishta v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 972, 979 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). Sedraky an ar g ues that without her ne w counsel prese nt, she could not provide cohe rent a nd
c on sis te nt t e sti mony

duri ngthe he ari ng . Wh a t sh e do e s n ot s ay , h ow e ve r, is that th e pr ob le m is larg ely (if not wholly

) one of her own making

. She dismiss ed her prior counse l in October 2003 a nd the I J g rante d counsel’s motion t o withdraw in e arly Fe bruar y 2004. Whil e Petitioner asse rts on appea l that she did not have adequate not ice of the I J ’s order gra nting the motion, she ca

nnot show
s h e w a s p r e

j u d i c e d g i v e ns h e w a s t h e o n e w h o d i s m i s s e d h e r p r i o r c o u n s e l an d , m o r e i mp o rt a n t l y, she had a lrea dy reta ined new counsel in January 2004. Petitioner offe rs no explanation why her ne w
c ouns e l did no t a tte nd the he ari ng . She re fe rs to a le tte r purp or te dly fr om c ouns e l a sk ingthe I J toNo. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

Sedraky an also sug g ests that there was a “Ta pe 2” missing from the hearing transcr ipt. She 3 did not raise this issue befor e the B I A, and th er ef o re has fa iled to exhaust her administrative reme dies on the m atter. Fur thermore , a re view of the transcr ipt belies any conce rn about a

lost tape. Although the hear ing is, at times, disjoi nted, there is nothing to indicate that a larg e portion of the testimony is missing , as one would expect if an entire tape was left out. Fr om the I J ’s brief discussion about “Tape 1” at the be g inning of the hea ring , it appear s likely

that the I J simply

started the hea ring using “ Tape 2” rather than “ Tape 1.” Thus, whe n the I J s wi tched to “T ape 3” in the middle of the hea

ring , she wa s likely

switching from “T ape 2” to “Tape 3.” - 10 - transfe r the c ase f

rom Cleveland to Cincinnati. T h e letter is not, however, inc luded in the re cord befor e us, so there is no way for us to deter mine whether her new counse l offer ed any explanation (re asonable or not) for

his failure to attend. As for the hear ing itself, a revie w of the tra

nscript does c onfirm that the he ar i n g was disjoint ed at times. Most of t he problems occur red at the beginning of t he hearing , befor e Sedra ky an be g an te sti fy

inga bo ut h e r c a se . The re are fe we r int e rr up tio ns of the he ari ngon c e the I J beg ins to consider the merits of Sedraky an’s pe tition. A review of those sections conf irms that the I J did not int e rr up t Pe tit ion e r u

nn e c e ssa ri ly , a nd that th e he ari ngwa s su ff ic ie ntl y c oh e re nt. 3 A s f o r t h e d o c u m e n t s t h a tP e t i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s w e r e l o s t , s h e p r o v i d e d n o p r o f f e r t o t h e B IA of w h a t th o s e d o c u me n ts mi g h t b e , th e in f o r mati o n th a t mi g h t b e c o n ta in e d in th e d o c u me n ts, or oth e rw ise ho w s he wa s p re jud ic e d b y

the ir a bs e nc e fr om the he ari ng . Simi larl y , sh e do e s no t e xpla in how the docume nts that the I J purportedly ignor ed would have i mpacted he r ca se. In any event, ther e is no duty

of a judicia l office r to index on t he re cord a ll of the documents and othe r evide nce considere d in arrivingat a de cision. Cf. Un ite d S tat es v . G ale , 468 F.3d 929, 941 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 6) (“ [A] di str ic t c ourt

ne e d n ot d e sc ri be in det ail or lis t a ll o f t

he do c ume nts or

oth e r e vid e nc e itNo. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 11 - considere d during sentenc ing.” ). Wit hout some aff irmative showing that the I J actua lly ignor ed the documents, Petitioner ca

nnot show a due- proce ss violation. Cf. id.

E. Sub stantial Evid ence Supports the IJ’s Dec ision Sedraky an further contends that the re cord doe s not contain substantial evidenc e supporting the I J ’s denial of

asy l u m . The Attorne y

Gene ral may

g rant a sy lum to a refug ee. 8 U .S.C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) ; Namo v. Gonzales , 401 F.3d 453, 456 (6th Cir. 2005). A “r efug ee” is any person who is outside of the country of the person’ s nationality or last habitual re sidence and who is unable or unwilling to re turn to that country beca use of pe rsec ution or a well-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution on
acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a particular social g roup, or political opinion. 8 U. S.C. § 1 10 1( a )( 42 ); Berri v. Gonzales , 4 68 F .3 d 3 90 , 3 96 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; Rreshpja v. Gonzales , 420 F. 3d 551, 554 (6th Cir. 2005). Whether to g rant a sy lum involves two separate inquiries: (1) does the ap p l i ca n t qualify as a “ ref ug ee” as def

ined under

the law; and ( 2) if so, does the r efug ee merit “a favor able e x erc ise of dis cre tion by the Att orney Gene ral.” Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 389 (q u o t i n g Pe rk

ov ic v . I NS , 33 F.3d 615, 620 (6th Cir. 1994) ). The applicant has the burde n of proof to sho w that she is a

re fu g e e . 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )( B )( i) ; Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 88 F .3 d 9 41 , 9 50 (6 th Cir. 2004). “An a pplicant claiming to be a r efugee m u s t present spe cific f acts de monstrating that she suffe red past perse cution or that she has a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution.” Rr esh pja , 420 F.3d at 554. I f the a

pplicant satisfies her

burden on pa st persec ution, “sh e is presumed to have a well-founde d fea

r of [future] perse cution.” Id

. at 5 5 4 -5 5 (q u o t i n g Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 389);No. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 12 - see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 1). “Otherwise, an applicant can obtain asylum only on the basis of a fe ar of future pe rsec ution by demonstrating that [her] fea r i s g enuine a

nd that a re asonable person under [her] circ umstances would have the similar fe ar.” Zacarias v. Gonzales , No. 06-3581, 2007 W L 1 3 4 7 8 9 7 , at * 3 (6 t h C i r. M ay 8 , 2 0 0 7 ) (u np u b l i s h ed ) ( ci t i n g Be rri , 46 8 F .3 d a t 39 6; Namo , 401 F.3d at 456).

1. P ast P erse cution Se dr a ky an a

rgue s th a t th e I J er

re d in c on c lud ing that sh e did no t su ff e r p a st p e rs e c uti on

in Armenia . The I J did not make an a dverse cre dibilit y finding , and the B I A assumed he r to be
cre dible, so we “ must acce pt th e [ fa ct u al ] repr esentations [ she] made in the application and [her] testimony as true.” Gilaj , 408 F.3d at 285-86. To establish past perse cution, an applica nt must show that she “was spe cifica lly targ eted by the g overnme nt for abuse based on a statutorily

protec ted g round and w as not mere ly a victim of indiscriminate mistreatment.” Id . This is n o t an ea s y s tandar d to meet. “[P] erse cution does not encompa ss all treatment that our soc iety reg ards a s unfair, unju s t , o r ev en unlawful or unconstitutional. I f per secution we re de fined e x pansively , a signific ant perc entag e of the wor ld’s population would qualify for asy lum in this country
. . . .” Lumaj v. Gonzales , 4 62 F .3 d 5 74 , 5 77 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Fa tin v . I NS , 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d Cir. 1 9 9 3 ))

. An applicant must show something “ more than a

fewisolated incidents of ve rbal ha rassment or intim idation, unacc ompanied by phy sical punishment, infliction of harm, or sig nificant de privation of liberty .” Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 390.No. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 13 - Contrary to Sedrakyan’s position, the rec ord evide nce doe s not co m p el a d ec i sion in her fa vo r. B a se d o n Pe tit ion e r’ s o wn te sti mony , the I J c on c lud e d tha t her de te nti on in 1 99 6 w a s d ue to the police investig ation of an assault, rathe r than her own political opinions. Detention, ar rest, and even phy sical abuse in connec tion with a police investig ation d o n ot constitute persec ution. Ali v. As hc ro ft , 366 F.3d 407, 410 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (af fir ming the immig ration judg e’s f inding that ther e wa s “no evide nce that the police wer e conspiring with a rival political gr oup, or that they arr ested [the alien] for any

rea son other than his involvement in ca using a public disturbance ”). Whil e he r f

ir ingin 1 99 8 a

nd de te nti on in 200 0 we re argua

bly ba se d on h e r p oli tic a l op ini on s, these isolated incidents do not alone constitute per secution. In Mu lla i v . A sh c ro ft , 385 F .3 d 6 35 (6 th Cir. 2004), this court reje cted a simil ar a rg ument by

a p et i t i o n er. Petitioner a lleg ed that she ha d org anized and spoke at seve ral political ra llies. After the rallies, the a uthorities detained he r, beat her, and, on at l east one occa sion, deprived he r of f ood and water for

sever al day s. Id . at 637. She even lost h er j o b as a c hemical e ng ineer shortly afte r her last speec h. Id . The c ourt aff irmed the B I A’ s den ia l of he r pe tit ion fo r as y lum , fin din g that the se ve ra l in c ide nts c ite d b y the a pp lic a nt d id not rise to the level of

perse cution. Id

. 6 3 8-39. L ike in Mullai , the authorities’ tre atment of Sedraky an may be deplorable, but i s not eg reg ious enoug h to constitute persec ution. Gilaj , 408 F.3d

a t2 8 4 ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a to n e o r t w o i s o l a t e d

b e a t i n g s , w h i l e o f

f e n s i v e t o a l l f

o r m s o f c i v i l i z e d s o c i e t y, do no t c omp e l a

fi nd ingof

pe rs e c uti on ); Da nd

an v . A sh c ro

ft , 339 F.3d 567, 574 ( 7th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “ being detained, be aten a nd deprive d of food f

or three day s did not compel a finding of per secution”)

.No. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

Se dr a ky an a sk s th a t w e take ju dic ia l no tic e of the Marc h 2 00 6 U .S. De pa rtme nt o f S ta te 4 Report on Human Rig hts Condit ions in Armenia. The I J noted the p o o r h u man-rig hts recor d of Armenia based on the t hen-c urre nt 2003 report. Sedr aky an does not point to any materia l differ ence s betwee n the 2003 re port and the 2006 r eport, or an y m at er i al er rors in the e arlier repor t. I n any event, we cannot take judicial notice of f acts, including country

repor ts, outside the administrative rec ord. Keita v. Gonzales , 175 F. App’ x 711, 714 (6th Cir. 2006). - 14 - 2. F uture P erse cution Nor ha s Sedraky an pointed to evidenc e compe lling us to find that she has a w ell-founde d fea r of futur e pe rs e c uti on . A s sh e ha s fa ile d to s ho w p a st p e rs e c uti on , Se dr a ky an mu st s ho w i ns te a d th a t: (1) [she] has a fe ar o f p er s ec u t ion in . . . her country on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, natio na lity , me mbe rs hip in a part ic ula r soc ia l gr ou

p, or po lit ic a l op ini on ; ( 2) the re is a re asonable probability of suffe ring such per secution if [she] were to re turn to that country ; and (3) [she] is unable or unwilling to r eturn to that country beca use of suc h fea r. Lumaj , 4 6 2 F. 3 d

at 5 7 7 -7 8 (q u o t i n g Mikhailev itch , 1 46 F .3 d at 38 9) . “ Th e fe ar o f p e rs e c uti on mus t be both subje ctively g enuine and objectively rea sonable.” Id

. (c i t i n g Pe rk ov ic , 33 F.3d at 620-21). Be y ond th e tw o d e mo n s tr a ti o n s an d th e lo s t jo b , Se dr a ky an b a s e s h e r f e ar o f future pe rs e c uti on

on the a dv e rs e tr e a tme nt o f pol iti c a l lea de rs and Ar me nia ’s g e ne ra lly

po or hu man- ri g hts
rec ord. Addi t i o n ally , she points to the break-in at her daug hter’s a

partment a

nd the anony

mous 4 threats made ag ainst her a nd her da ug hter. There is no question that Armenia ’s human-rig hts r ecor d is poor , and the I J acknow ledg ed this fact. Ye t, the I J conclude d that there wa s littl e in the re cord to show that the A rmenian g ov e rnme nt w ou ld t arg e t Se dr a ky an f or he r p oli ti cal op ini on s if sh e we re to r e tur

n. With ou t a str on g e r s ho wi ngof

pa st p e rs e c uti on

ba se d o n h e r i nv olveme nt i n p oli tic s, the fa c t th a t so meNo. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 15 - political party o r m o v em ent leade rs ar e mistreate d is too tenuous a ree d to support Sedraky an’s
c la im. Moreove r, S edra

ky an fa ils to l ink the brea k-in to her own political a ctivities; rather, the
rec ord just as plausibly

sug g ests that this was a ra ndom act of violenc e. “[A] random criminal ac t . . . is not sufficient for a

finding of per secution.” Lumaj , 4 62 F .3 d a t 57 7- 78 . Si mil arl y , th e thr e a ts
are vag ue and not spe cifica lly tied to a ny political opinions held by Petitioner. Finally , it should be noted t hat S edra

ky an’s daug hter and pare nts curr ently live in the same town whe re Sedr aky an wa s detained in 1996 and 2000. I f Sedraky an wer e objectively in dang er of

perse cution, one would not expect her immediate family to be still residing in the town wher e she would presumably fac e the g reatest risk. Be cause the BIA deter

mined that Sedraky an does not qua lify as a “re fug ee” as def ined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a )(42) (A) and substantial evidenc e supports that dete rmination, we do not addr ess the question whether

she merits a f

avora ble exercise of

d i scre tion with respect to her application for asylum. Kol iad

a v . I NS , 259 F.3d 482, 488 ( 6th C i r. 2001). Accor dingly , we a ffirm the B I A’s de c isi on to d e ny Se dr a ky an a sylum

.

F. Re mai n i n g Cl a i ms Sedraky an ra ises a number of other cl ai m s . As p ar t of her a sy lum petition, s he aske d for withholding of r emoval. Withholdi ng of re moval will be g rante d if a pe titioner can de monstrate “a clear p robabili ty

of per secution” by

prese nting e vidence that shows that should she return to he r native countr

y , “it is more li kely than not that [she] would be subjec t to persec ution.” IN S v . S te v ic ,No. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 16 - 46 7 U .S. 40 7, 42 4 (19 84 ). Th is is a hig he r sta nd ard tha n th e sta nd ard fo r r e c e ivi nga sylum . T hu s, if a pe titioner is not eligible for asylum, she nece ssarily

fails to satisfy

the standar d for withholding of re moval. Y

u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 703 n. 3 ( 6th Cir. 2004). To support her CAT claim, Sedraky an must show that “it is more likely than not that . . . she would be torture d if remove d to the proposed country of remova l.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2). F or many of t he reasons not ed above, and be cause she has not sepa rate ly pursued a CAT claim, we r ejec t her request for relief

under that treaty
. Dashi v. Gonzales , No
. 06 -3 00 6, 20 07 WL 17 79 15 , a t *5 (6 th Cir. J an. 24, 2007) ( unpublished). Sedraky an also a sks that her c ase be rema nded so that the B I A ca

n consider sta

y ing he r
remova l while she see ks an adjustment base d on an I -130 petition fi l ed b y h er husband. As explained by the Attorney Gene ral, howeve r, the BIA has alre ady denied her reque st f or re opening to adjust her status. B eca use she ha s not designated that dec ision i n h er n o t i ce of appea l, we ar e prec luded from c onsidering the B I A’s dec ision not to reope n her c ase. Rr esh pja , 420 F.3d at 559. Finally , Sedraky an ar g ues that the B I A should not have a ffirme d the I J ’s d ec i s i on without opinion because of the I J ’s “mate ri al and sig nificant” err ors. Contrary to Sedraky an’s a ssertion, howeve r, the B I A did not affir m the I J ’s dec isi o n without opinion. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) (4)( ii), I f the B oard me mber d et ermines that the decision should be af firmed without op i n i o n , t h e B o ar d

s h a l l i s s u e ano r d e r

t h a tr e a d s a s f

o l l o w s : “ T h e B o ar d

a ff ir ms, without opinion, t he re sult of the decision below. The decision below is, there fore , the final a g ency

deter mination. See 8 CFR 3.1(e) (4).” An ord er af fi rming without opinion, issued under authority o f t h i s provision, shall not i nclude further explanation or reasoning

. Such an order appr oves the re sult reac hed in the dec ision below; it doe s not ne cessa rily imply approva l of all of the r easoningof that dec ision,No. 06-3053

Sedraky an v. Gonzales

- 17 - but does signif

y the B oard' s conclusion that any err ors in t he dec ision of the imm ig ratio n ju dg e or

the Se rv ic e we re ha

rm le ss o r n on ma te ri a l. (Emphasis adde d.) As noted above, the BIA issued a short opinion “adopt[ing] and aff irm[i ng ] t he decision of the Immigr at i o n J udg e” w hile offe ring its own brief c omment on the merits of Sedraky an’s cas e. This court has uphe ld simi lar de cisions. See, e .g. , Gi sh ta , 404 F.3d at 980 (holding that a BIA decision that adopts and af firms an I J ’s dec ision “demonstrates that the boa rd independe ntly

revie wed the c ase” ). I n any case , Sedraky an has failed to suppor t he r ar g ument that the I J err ed, as e x plained above

.

III For the re asons set out above , we AF FI RM the decision of the B I A.