Case Name: Tigran HOVHANNISYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-31
Citations: 535 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 11-71404
Parties: Tigran HOVHANNISYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 535
Pages: 570–571

Head Matter:
Tigran HOVHANNISYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71404.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed July 31, 2013.
Tigran Hovhannisyan, Myrtle Beach, SC, pro se.
Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tigran Hovhannisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") April 29, 2011 order reaffirming its July 22, 2004 order dismissing Hovhannisyan's appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's decision that a petitioner has not established eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Hovhannisyan failed to establish the harm he suffered or fears is on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (noting that, to reverse a BIA decision under the substantial evidence standard of review, "we must find that the evidence not only supports . but compels " a contrary conclusion) (emphasis in original). Contrary to his contention, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Hovhannisyan's actions "were directed toward a governing institution, . [and not] only against individuals whose corruption was aberrational." Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.2000); cf. Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir.2010) (petitioner exposed systemic government eor-ruption). Accordingly, Hovhannisyan's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2005).
We lack jurisdiction to review Hovhanni-syan's humanitarian asylum claim, because he did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of CAT relief, because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Hovhannisyan's contention that the agency violated his due process rights by denying his CAT claim and his subsequent motion to reopen. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.