Court Opinion

ID: 9876519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 23:00:34.36988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:12.701697
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID BALASYAN,                                 No. 22-1840
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A071-151-243
  v.                                            MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                    Argued and Submitted September 15, 2023
                              Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

       Petitioner David Balasyan, a native and citizen of Azerbaijan, seeks review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order reversing the Immigration

Judge’s decision to grant withholding of removal under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the

petition.

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      The BIA denied Balasyan’s application for protection under the CAT on the

ground that Balasyan failed to show that he would more likely than not be tortured

if removed to Azerbaijan. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 834

(9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that applicants for withholding of removal under the

CAT must show that they are more likely than not to be tortured if removed to the

proposed country of removal). The evidence does not compel a contrary

conclusion. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (affirming

denial of CAT protection where the record did not indicate a particularized threat

of torture); see also I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992)

(explaining that we must uphold the BIA’s determination unless the evidence

compels a contrary conclusion). A likelihood of persecution or discrimination

upon removal is not sufficient to establish entitlement to CAT protection. See

Medina-Rodriguez v. Barr, 979 F.3d 738, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming the

denial of CAT protection where the record showed that petitioner would likely face

discrimination and persecution but not torture).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 2) is otherwise denied.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        2                                  22-1840