Hakob Churchian v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 385 F. App'x 628 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAKOB SAR CHURCHIAN, AKA No. 08-74464
Hakop Cherichian,
Agency No. A095-573-744
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
HAKOB SAR CHURCHIAN, AKA No. 09-71506
Hakop Cherichian, AKA Hakob Sargsi
Churchian, AKA Saro Sahakyan, AKA Agency No. A095-573-744
Hakob Sarkisovich Churchian,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Argued and Submitted May 14, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and PRO, **
District Judge.
Hakob Sar Churchian, a native and citizen of Azerbaijan, petitions for
review of two decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). In the first
decision, the BIA denied Churchian deferral of removal under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). In the second decision, the BIA denied Churchian’s
combined motions to reconsider and to reopen sua sponte.
There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the BIA’s conclusion
that Churchian did not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured if returned to Azerbaijan. The record establishes that Churchian may well
face discrimination and harassment in Azerbaijan as a result of his mixed ethnicity.
It does not, however, compel the conclusion that he is more likely than not to be
tortured. See Mutuku v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1210, 1214 (9th Cir. 2010).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Churchian’s motion to
reconsider. Churchian’s primary argument for reconsideration was that the BIA
had failed to consider sufficiently his past treatment in Azerbaijan and the suffering
**
The Honorable Philip M. Pro, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
2
Churchian continues to experience as a result of that past treatment. Given the
discussion of Churchian’s past treatment in the BIA’s decision, we cannot say it
was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law” to deny the motion to reconsider.
Saldana v. I.N.S., 762 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1985).
This court does not have jurisdiction “to review the BIA's decision not to
exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen the case.” Nevarez Nevarez v. Holder,
572 F.3d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss that part of the
petition.
The first petition is DENIED. The second is DENIED in part and
DISMISSED in part.
3