Anna Akopian v. Loretta E. Lynch , 603 F. App'x 591 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 12 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNA AKOPIAN, AKA Anoush No. 12-70640
Patrikian,
Agency No. A095-716-867
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 6, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: FISHER, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Anna Akopian, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Georgia,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, Cortez–Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th
Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the treatment
Akopian endured did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,
319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
persecution, because her fear is not objectively reasonable. See Castro-Martinez v.
Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, Petitioner has not established
eligibility for asylum. Because Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum,
it necessarily follows that she failed to meet the more stringent standard for
withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.
2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of Petitioner’s CAT claim,
because she has not shown that it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Georgia if she is returned
there. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION DENIED.
-2-