N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HEGHINE M AR TIR O SYAN; M A YK M AR TIR OSYAN,

Pe t i tione rs,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-71916 Age n c y Nos. A206-913-680

A206-913-681
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M ay

8, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M UR G U IA and C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STEIN, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
MAY12 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Sidne y

H. Ste in, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.He ghine M artirosy a n a nd he r m inor son, na

tive s a nd c itiz e ns of Arm e nia , pe tition for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA’ s ) de c i sion dism issing the i r a

ppe a l from

the Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ’ s) orde r de ny i ng a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ), and we dism iss the pe tition in pa

rt a nd de n y the pe tition in pa

rt. 1 W e re vie w the de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd C A T c l a im s for substa ntia l e v ide nc e . Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2019) (c iting Singh v . Holde r , 764 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th C i r. 2014)). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t M artirosy an did not m e e t he r burde n of proof to e sta b lish pa st pe rse c u tion or a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution ba se d

on he r m e m

be rship in theArm e nia

n Nationa l Pa

rty
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(i) (burde n of proof is on a pplic ant to e sta

blish e ligibility for a s y lum ); se e also Duran-Rodrigue z , 918 F.3d a

t 1028. The IJ prope rly de te rm i ne d tha

t M artirosy an ’ s te stim ony a lone wa s insuffic ie nt to m e e t he r burde n,
se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(ii) (a pplic a nt’ s te stim ony

a l one m ay

susta in burde n only if c re dible , pe rsua sive , and suffic ie n tly spe c i fic ). The doc um e nta ry e vide nc e

1 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c ts, we re c ite only those fa c ts ne c e ssa ry to de c ide the pe tition. 2M artirosy an subm itte d did not c orroborate he r spe c ific c la im s re ga rding pa st inc i de nts, a

nd c ountry

c onditions e vide nc e did not e sta blish tha t she ha s a we llfounde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution ba se d on he r politic a l pa rty m e m b e rship. Ac c ordingly , the B IA prope rly de nie d M artirosy an’ s c la im s for a sy lum and withholding of rem o v a l. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t M artirosy an fa ile d to e sta

blish shewould m ore like ly tha n not be subje c te d to torture instiga te d by , or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of, a public offic ia l in Arm e nia
. B e c a use M a r t i r o s y a n f

a i le d to m e e t h e r b u r d e n t o e s ta b li s h t h a t t h e p a s t h a r m s h e a l l e g e d
o c c u r r e d , “ we would ha

v e to find tha

t the [c o untry

c onditions] re ports a lone
c om pe l[] the c onc l u sion tha

t the pe t itione r is m ore like ly tha n not to betorture d.” Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1049 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting Almaghzar v

. Gonzale s , 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 13 (9th C ir. 2006)). He re , the ge ne ra l c ountry
c onditions e vide nc e doe s not e s ta blish tha t M a rtirosy an would m o re like ly tha n not be subje c te d to torture in Arm e nia
. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w Pe titione rs’ c onte ntion tha t the IJ e rre d by fa iling to provide

notic e of re quire d c orroborating e vide nc e be c a use Pe titione rs did not ra ise this a

rgum e nt to theB IA. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004).
3PE T IT IO N DISM ISSE D in par t and DE NIE D in par t.

4