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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc 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 R OZ A K HA C HA T UR OV A; S E VA K P AP AN 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 yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70045 A ge nc yN os . A 098- 469- 175

A 099- 044- 495 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 do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R oz aK ha c ha tur ova , ana t i ve of A z e rba i j a n a nd c i t i z e n of

A rm e ni a , a nd S evak P apanyan, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f A rm eni a, pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng the i rappe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g th e irap p lic a tio n s f o ra s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, 

# FI LED SEP 24 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 70045 2 a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence fa ctual f in d in g s . W

akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he r e c or d doe s notc om pe l the c onc l us i on tha tthe thr e a tK ha c ha tur ova r e c e i ve d f

r om pol i c e i n 2000, orthe i nt e rr oga t i on a nd m i s tr e a tm e nts he r e c e i ve d by p o lic e in 2 0 0 4 , e v e n c o n s id e r e dc u m u la tiv e ly , r is e to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . Pr a s a d v . I NS , 47 F . 3d 33 6, 34 0 (9th C i r. 19 95 ). A cc ordi ng l y, subst ant i al e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e a g e n c y ’s p a s t p e r s e c u tio n f in d in g . Se e i d. ; H

oxha v. A s h c r o ft , 3 1 9 F . 3 d1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 2 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ A l th o u g h [p et i t i o n er’ s] experi ence s are di sturbi ng and regrett abl e, they do n otevi nce a ct i on s s o sever e a s t o c om pe l af

i ndi ng of pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. ” ) . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a l s o s upport s the agency ’ s f

i nd i ng thatpet i t i on er s have f ai l ed t o sho w a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n . Se e Na g o u lko v . I NS , 33 3 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 16 -18 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). B e c aus e K ha c ha tur ova f a ile dto e s tab lis h e lig ib ilityf o ra s y lu m , it ne c e s s a r i l yf

ol l ow s tha ts he c a nnotm e e tthe m or e s tr i nge nts t a nda r d f or w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. See Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 45 3 F . 3d 11 82 , 11 90 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) .09- 70045 3 F i nal l y, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s deni alof C A T re l i ef be c aus e K ha c ha tur ovaf a i l e d t o s how i ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n nottha ts he w oul d be to rtu r e dif

r e m o v e dto I n d o n e s ia . See W a kka ry , 558 F . 3d a t1067- 68. W e d e c lin e to r e v ie w m a te r ia ls th a t a r e n o t p a rt o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r e c o r d . Se e Fis h e rv . I

NS , 79 F . 3d 95 5, 96 3 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( en banc). PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .