N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GAR O KRIKOR

GULESSERIAN, a .k.a . Gary Krikor Gule sse rian, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73171 Age n c y No. A021-558-794 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July 22, 2014 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . Garo Krikor Gule sse rian, a nat ive and c itiz e n of Le ba non, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED JUL 30 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. C ordoba v . Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th C ir. 2013). W e re vie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola tions in de

p ortat ion proc e e dings. C

olme nar v . IN

S , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th C ir. 2000). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t a prote c te d ground wa s one c e ntra l re a s on be hind thea ssa ult, kidna pping a nd e xtortion tha

t Gule s se rian suffe re d in Le ba

non. Se e Parussimov

a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ to de m onstra

te tha t a prote c te d ground wa s ‘ at le a st one c e ntra l re a s on’ for the p e rse c ution, a

n a pplic ant m

u st prove tha

t suc h ground wa s a

c a use of the pe rse c utors’ a c ts” ); Donc he v v . Muk a se y , 553 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th C ir. 2009) (e vide nc e doe s not “ c om

pe l the oppositec o nc lusion just be c a u se it would also support a diffe re nt re sult” ). W ith re spe c t to futurefe ar, substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha

t the like l ihood of futureha rm wa s too spe c ulative . S

e e N agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C i r. 2003). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the de nia l of Gule sse rian’ s C AT c la im , be c a use he ha s not shown it is m ore like ly tha n not he will betorture d

by or with the c onse nt or a c quie sc e n c e of the gove rnm e nt of Le ba non if he is re turne d. Se e 1 2 - 7 3 1 7 1 2Zhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th C ir. 2011). W e re je c t Gule sse rian’ s c onte ntion tha

t the B IA m isinte rpre te d the provisions of C AT a nd fa ile d to c onside r a ll of thee vide nc e . Fina lly , we re

je c t Gule sse rian’ s argum e nt tha t the IJ viola

te d his dueproc e s s by fa iling to c re dit fully

his e xpe rts’ e vide nc e , be c a use the re c ord re fle c ts the IJ c onside re d the e xp e rts’ re ports a nd te stim ony and offe re d spe c ific re a sons for lim iting its we ight. Se e Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C i r. 2000) (re quiring e rror to pre v a il on a due proc e ss viola

tion). W e a l so re

je c t Gule sse rian’ s re m a ining due proc e ss c la i m s, be c a use Gule sse rian ha d

a full a n d fa ir he aring a

nd a re a sona ble opportunity

to pre se nt his e vide n c e . Se e Riv e ra v . Muk a se y , 508 F.3d 1271, 1276 (9th C ir. 2007). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 1 7 1 3