Ruzanna Manukyan v. Loretta E. Lynch , 643 F. App'x 654 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUZANNA MANUKYAN, No. 13-74183
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-050-351
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ruzanna Manukyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact.
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Manukyan failed to
establish the incidents of harm she suffered in Armenia and her fear of future
persecution based on those incidents were on account of a protected ground. See
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID
Act, applicant must prove a protected ground is at least “one central reason” for
persecution); see also Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 871-72 (9th Cir. 2011)
(rejecting petitioner’s imputed political opinion claim where the evidence
“overwhelmingly” showed persecutors were motivated by a non-protected ground).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Manukyan failed to
establish her fear of future harm based on her actual political opinion and her
political activities in the United States was objectively reasonable. See Halim v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2009) (“credible, direct, and specific
evidence” is needed to support a reasonable fear of persecution); see also
Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of persecution “too speculative”). Thus,
we deny the petition for review as to Manukyan’s asylum claim.
2 13-74183
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Manukyan’s CAT
claim because she failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she would
be tortured if returned to Armenia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073
(9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74183