Thi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd 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.

The pane l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a) (2). N ED / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CA T I ON

UN I TE D STATE S COURT OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CI RCUI T V A R D U I H A V A T Y A N , a. k . a. M ari Tas hc hyan, P et i t i o n er, v. E R IC H . H O L D E R J r., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71843 A ge nc y N o. A 078- 015- 458 M E M OR AN DU M *

O n Pet i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a rd o f I m m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Subm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efore: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcuitJu d g es. V a r dui H a va tya n, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of A rm e ni a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B o ard o f I m m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ ord er sum m ari l y aff i rm i n g an i m m i g rat i o n j u d g e’s de c i s i on de nyi ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s yl um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd 

# FI L ED NOV 30 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U . S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALSN ED / R es ear ch 07- 71843 2 pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tTortur e ( “CA T”) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s ta n ti a l e v id e n c e , IN S v. E l i a sZacar i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) , and w e gr anti n pa rta nd de ny i n pa rtthe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e ag en cy ’s determ i n at i o n th atH av aty an w as n o th arm edo n acco u n to f a p rotect edg rou n di s n o tsup p o rt edb y sub st an t i al ev i d en ce b ecau se H av aty an ’s w hi st l e- bl ow i ng ac t i on s w er e a i m ed atgo vernm entcorrup t i on and the po l i ce r e ta li a ti o n w a s m o ti v a te da t l e a s t i n p art b y h e re x p o s u r e o f th e b r ib e ry s c h e m e . See Fedu nyak v. G on zales , 47 7 F . 3d 11 26 , 11 29 - 30 ( 9th C i r . 20 07 ) ( w hi st l ebl ow i ng i s pol i t i c a l w he n di r e c t e d t ow ar ds gove rni ng i ns t i tut i on) . I n a ddi t i on, the a g e n c y f a il e dto ap p ly th e p r o p e rp r e s u m p ti o n w h e n a s s e s s in g in te rn a l r e lo c a ti o n . See 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 13( b) ( 3) ( i i ) ( i f “the pe r s e c ut ori s agove rnm e nt. . . i ts ha l l be p resum edth ati n t ernal r el o cat i o n w o u l dn o tb e reason ab l e”). S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the deni alof C A T r el i ef because H avatyan fa ile dto s h o w it is m o re lik e ly th an n o t th a t s h e w ill b e to rtu re dif s h e re tu rn s to A rm e n ia . See Kum ar v. G on zales , 4 4 4 F . 3 d1 0 4 3 , 1 0 5 5 -56 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). A cco rding l y , w e g rant th e p et i t i o n for review w i th respect t o H av aty an ’s a s y lu m a n dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im s , an dre m an dfo r th e a g e n c y to det erm i ne w hethershe has es t abl i shed pastper se cut i on , and t o ass es s f uture f earN ED / R es ear ch 07- 71843 3 w ith th e p r o p e rp r e s u m p ti o n . See IN S v. V en tu ra , 53 7 U . S . 12 , 16 - 18 ( 20 02 ) ( per c u r ia m ) . E a c h p a rty s h a l l b e a ri t s o wn c o s t s f o rth i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W G R A N T E D i n p a rt; D E N IE D i n p a rt; RE M AN DE D.