Ani Sahakyan v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANI SAHAKYAN, No. 19-71377
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-911-900
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ani Sahakyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Sahakyan experienced in Armenia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to
the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.
2006) (detention, beating, and interrogation did not compel a finding of past
persecution); see also INS. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“To
reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that
conclusion, but compels it[.]”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.
2003) (“Persecution ... is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
treatment our society regards as offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Sahakyan
failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at
1022 (petitioner failed “to present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a
well-founded fear of persecution”); see also Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018(possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).
Thus, Sahakyan’s asylum claim fails.
Because Sahakyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, she
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
2 19-71377
1190.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71377