Case Name: Vardanush GRIGORYAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-16
Citations: 622 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 12-71734
Parties: Vardanush GRIGORYAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 682–683

Head Matter:
Vardanush GRIGORYAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71734.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2015.
Filed Nov. 16, 2015.
Marina Kab, Law Offices of Marina Kab, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
O.I.L. Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, D.O.J.-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: FARRIS, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
Vardanush Grigoryan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision (1) denying her application for asylum, (2) denying her request for withholding of removal, (3) denying her request for relief pursuant to the United Nations Convention Against Torture ("CAT"), and (4) ordering her removed to Armenia, her country of origin.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts and circumstances of this ease, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.
Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's determination — affirmed by the BIA — that any adversity suffered by Mrs. Grigoryan as a whistleblower was not the result of her political opinion. Furthermore, the adverse consequences she did endure did not amount to persecution, either singly or in combination.
Moreover, even if Grigoryan did establish cognizable persecution, the government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Gri-goryan's husband lives in Armenia and works as a police officer in the government agency where her problems started. The IJ said the following about her alleged fear of harm should she be required to return:
It is simply unbelievable for this Court to think that government officials would somehow be targeting the Respondent or even Respondent's husband, . The Court finds this aspect of Respondent's testimony incredible, and unbelievable, and implausible.
The record supports this observation.
Finally, the record amply validates the BIA's determination that relevant "conditions in Armenia have fundamentally changed since the respondent's departure in 2003," changes that are sufficient to rebut Grigoryan's alleged fear of future persecution or harm. Accordingly, her application for asylum and her requests for withholding of removal and relief pursuant to CAT all fail.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3,