Case Name: Astghik HAKOBYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-19
Citations: 444 F. App'x 140
Docket Number: No. 08-72555
Parties: Astghik HAKOBYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 140–141

Head Matter:
Astghik HAKOBYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72555.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 19, 2011.
Artem M. Sarian, Esquire, Sarian Law Group, APLC, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher C. Fuller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Ha-kobyan’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Astghik Hakobyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision de nying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Hako-byan's challenge to the IJ's denial of CAT relief, her claim based on nationality, and her contention that the IJ violated due process by failing to include the Department of State's country report in the administrative record, because she failed to exhaust these issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
The record does not compel the conclusion that Hakobyan's encounters with Armenian authorities rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995) (being hit in the stomach, kicked from behind, and questioned during a brief six-hour detention did not compel a finding of persecution). Additionally, the record does not compel the conclusion that Hako-byan has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022 (record did not compel finding a well-founded fear of persecution where the only evidence of any ongoing interest in petitioner after he left the country was that authorities sought to interview him without threatening him or his family in any way). Accordingly, Hakobyan's asylum claim fails.
Because Hakobyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.