Case Name: Karen KARAPETAN, aka Carl Karapetian, aka Carlos Karapetian, aka Karro Karapetian, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-19
Citations: 599 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 11-73189
Parties: Karen KARAPETAN, aka Carl Karapetian, aka Carlos Karapetian, aka Karro Karapetian, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 285–285

Head Matter:
Karen KARAPETAN, aka Carl Karapetian, aka Carlos Karapetian, aka Karro Karapetian, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73189.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 19, 2015.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Karen Karapetan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1036-37 (9th Cir.2013). We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings underlying the determination that Karapetan is not eligible for CAT relief. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that, even if Karapetan's witness gave credible testimony, Karapetan did not establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of Armenian officials if he is removed to Armenia. Id. at 1194. We reject Karapetan's contention that the IJ ignored country conditions evidence. Thus, Karapetan's claim for deferral of removal under CAT fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).