T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T F R UN Z I K MAN UK YA N; MANO US HA K MAN UK YA N, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e y G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 70747 A ge nc y N os . A 075- 738- 971

A 075- 738- 972 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 11, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: D . W . N E L S O N , B Y B E E , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e t i t i one r s F runz i k M a nuky a n ( “ l e a d pe t i t i one r ” or“ M r . M a nuky a n” ) a nd M anou shak M anuk yan (“ M rs . M anuk yan”), ci t i ze ns of A rm eni a, se ek re vi ew of a f i na l or de rof

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) a f f i rm i ng the 

# FI LED

APR15 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) det erm i nat i on thatP et i t i on er s f ai l ed t o est abl i sh that the ha rm M r . M a nuky a n s uf f e r e d i n A rm e ni ar i s e s t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on a nd tha tP e t i t i one r s f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on i n A rm e ni aon th e b asi s o f a p o l i t i cal o r i m p u t ed p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n . W e d en y th e p et i t i o n s. T he B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on s thatan as yl um appl i canthas notdem on stra t ed p astp ersecu t i o n o r a w el l -fo u n d ed fear o f fu tu re p ersecu t i o n are factual fi n d i n g s, w h ic h m u s t b e r e v ie w e d f o rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Se e I N A v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 481 ( 1992) . A c c or di ngl y , thi s pa ne l m us ta f f i rm the B I A ’ s f

i ndi ngs un l es s the evi dence com pel s acontraryre sul t . 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)(4)(B). “ U nd er the subst ant i al evi dence s t andard of revi ew , the courtof appeal s m ustaf fi rm w hen i ti s possi bl e t o d raw tw o i ncon si st entconcl usi on s f rom the evi dence. ” P e dr oM a te o v . I NS , 224 F . 3d 1147, 1150 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . B e c aus e the B I A a c c e pt e d P e t i t i one r s ’ t e s t i m ony a s c r e di bl e , thi s pa ne l i s “ r e qui r e d t o a c c e pt [thei r] t es t i m on y a s true. ” Li m v . I NS , 224 F . 3d 929, 933 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). W e f i nd thatthe re cord do es no tcom pel ei ther afi nd i ng thatM r. M anuk yan’ s e xp er i ence s a m ou ntt o p as tpers ec ut i on or thatP et i t i on er s have a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . T o est abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on , an al i en mu s tp r e s e n te v i d e n c e th a th e h a s e x p e r i e n c e d “ th e i n f l i c t i o n o f s u f f e r i n g o rh a rm3

. . . i n a w ayre garded as offe nsi ve” a s are sul tof hi s “ ra ce , re l i gi on , or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . ” G u v. G on zales , 45 4 F . 3d 10 14 , 10 19 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T h is m is tr e a tm e n t m u s t b e “e x tr e m e ” f o rit to c o n s titu te p e r s e c u tio n . I d. ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . A c c o r d in g ly , it “d o e s n o t in c lu d e e v e ry s o rt o f tr e a tm e n t o u rs o c ie ty re gards a s off

ensi ve. ” I

d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). I n th is c a s e , M r . M a n u k y a n h a s e x p e r ie n c e d th e f o llo w in g m is tr e a tm e n t, a l l e ge dl y on the ba s i s of hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on: ( 1) he w a s f i r e d f r om hi s j ob; ( 2) he w a s de t a i ne d by the pol i c e tw i c e , onc e f ore i ghthour s a nd onc e f orf i ve da y s ; ( 3) he w a s t ol d by the pol i c e tha the s houl d “ ke e p [ hi s ] m outh s huta nd j us tbe ha ve [ h im ]s e lf ” b e c au s e “[ n ]e x t tim e . . . it’s n o t g o n n ab e lik e th is ,” A .R . 1 7 1 ( p o s s ib ly i m pl yi ng thatthe nextt i m e he w as det ai ned h e w ou l d suffe r w orse m i stre atm ent ); and (4) he w as se vere l y bea t en by tw o u nk no w n att ac kers af t erhe gave a pol i t i ca l spee ch. A l tho ug h thi s m i stre atm enti s off ensi ve, w e do n otthi nk the re cord c o m p e ls af

in d in g th a t it r is e s to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . See G u v. G on zales , 454 F . 3d 10 14 , 10 20 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( no tcom pel l ed t o fi nd pers ec ut i on w here pet i t i on erdet ai ned and beat en); Pr a s a d v . I NS , 47 F . 3d 336, 339 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( notc om pe l l e d t o f

i nd pe r s e c ut i on w he r e pe t i t i one ra rr e s t e d, hi ta nd ki c ke d by p o lic e , d e ta in e d f

o rf o u rto s ix h o u r s a n d in te rr o g a te d ) .4

B e c aus e M r . M a nuky a n ha s note s t abl i s he d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, he i s not e n title d to ap r e s u m p tio n o f aw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . 8 C .F .R . § 12 08 . 13 (b)( 1). T he B IA foun d that , al tho ug h M r. M anuk yan m aysubj ec t i vel y f ear p e r s e c u tio n , “h e f

a ile d to p r o d u c e e v id e n c e e s tab lis h in g a n o b je c tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le pos s i bi l i ty of

s uf f e r i ng s uc h pe r s e c ut i on i f he i s r e turne d t o A rm e ni a ” be c aus e he di d nota l l e ge s pe c i f

i c f a c t s tha t“ a ny one i n A rm e ni aw a s s t i l l l ooki ng f orhi m or othe rw i s e i nt e nde d t o s i ngl e hi m outf orpe r s e c ut i on ne a r l y 2 y e a r s a f t e rl e a vi ng the c ountry . ” [ A . R . 5. ] T he r e c or d doe s notc om pe l ac ontr a ry f i ndi ng. A s w e ha ve not e d, “ a n appl i c a ntm a y nots i m pl y pr ove tha tthe r e e xi s t s age ne r a l i z e d or r a n d o m p o s s ib ility o f

p e r s e c u tio n in h e rn a tiv e c o u n try ; s h e m u s t s h o w th a t s h e is atpart i cul arri sk— thather pre di ca m enti s app re ci abl y di ff er entfr om the dang er s fa ce d b y herfe l l ow ci t i ze ns. ” M g o i a n v . I

NS , 184 F . 3d 1029, 1035 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( a l t e r a t i ons , quot a t i on m a rks , a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W e a r e notc om pe l l e d t o f i nd tha tP e t i t i one r s m e tthi s bur de n, w he r e the e vi de nc e f orthe i rc l a i m of

af e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on r e s t s pr i m a r i l y on M r . M a nuky a n’ s e xpe r i e nc e s de s c r i be d above and the 20 01 U . S . D epartm entof S t at e C ou ntryR eporton H um an R i gh t s P ra ct i ce s i n A rm e ni a , w hi c h i de nt i f i e d M r . M a nuky a n’ s pol i t i c a l pa rty a s a n “ oppos i t i on p ar t[y].” [A .R . 2 1 4 .] C om par e i d. at10 37 (c om pel l ed t o fi nd fe arof future pe r s e c ut i on w he r e r e c or d c ont a i ne d e vi de nc e of “ the vi ol e nta nd ha r a s s i ng a c t i ons5

of a s egm entof A rm eni an soci ety benton ethn i c c l eansi ng — ac t i on s w hi ch t a r ge t e d [ the pe t i t i one r ] a nd he rf a m i l y f orthe i rpr om i ne ntr ol e a s i nt e l l e c tua l s i n a s m a l l a nd vul ne r abl e m i nor i ty ” ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e f i nd tha tthe B I A ’ s c onc l us i on thatM r. M anuk yan d i d n otes t abl i sh an obj ec t i ve fe arof pers ec ut i on i s s up po rt ed by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d. P E T I T I ON S DE NI E D.