Court Opinion

ID: 9380582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 17:00:51.571209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.293292
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE OHANES ZAKARIAN,                         No. 21-287

              Petitioner,                       Agency No.      A090-191-420

  v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                            Submitted March 16, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: BRESS and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN, *** District
Judge.

       George Ohanes Zakarian, a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration

Judge (IJ) order denying his application for protection under the Convention

       *
            This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
       ***
              The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for
the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Against Torture (CAT).        We review the agency’s decision for substantial

evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021). “Under this

standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels

a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.

2019). Where the BIA “adopt[s] and affirm[s] the IJ’s decision without adding

any commentary of its own, we treat the IJ’s decision as that of the BIA.” Sinha

v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1019–20 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.1

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. “A

petitioner seeking CAT relief must show that it is more likely than not that he will

be tortured upon removal, and that the torture will be inflicted at the instigation

of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the government.” Arteaga v. Mukasey,

511 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2007). The evidence in the record does not compel

the conclusion that Zakarian more likely than not will be tortured with the consent

or acquiescence of the Iraqi government if he is removed to Iraq. Zakarian did

not present evidence that he or his family members had ever been harmed or

tortured in Iraq. The IJ also found that some non-Muslims have lived in more

hospitable areas of Iraq and that country reports show that Iraq has made efforts

to protect religious minorities. In fact, the IJ found that the country report detailed

1
 Zakarian does not challenge the IJ’s determination that he is removable and not
eligible for asylum, withholding, or cancellation of removal due to various
criminal convictions.

                                          2                                      21-287
the Iraqi government’s ongoing efforts to battle ISIS and provide security to

minority groups.

      Substantial evidence supports these findings.           Zakarian has not

demonstrated it is more likely than not that he “faces any particularized risk” of

torture if he returns to Iraq. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 751 (9th

Cir. 2022).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        3                                   21-287