Case Name: Norik GHAZARYAN, Laurik Ghazaryan, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-08
Citations: 210 F. App'x 602
Docket Number: No. 05-75088
Parties: Norik GHAZARYAN, Laurik Ghazaryan, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 602–603

Head Matter:
Norik GHAZARYAN, Laurik Ghazaryan, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75088.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
Sassoun Nalbandian, Law Offices of Sassoun A. Nalbandian, Valley Village, CA, for Petitioners.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Paul Fiorino, Esq., William G. Maddox, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Norik Ghazaryan and his wife, Laurik, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying their application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Where, as here, the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ's decision directly. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that the harm the Ghazaryans experienced due to a land dispute with local government officials was not on account of their political opinion. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1997).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.