Sargis Hakobyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARGIS HAKOBYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70354
Agency No. A096-144-697
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Sargis Hakobyan, a native of Syria and citizen of Armenia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying
his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
FILED
MAR 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-70354 2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, and
remand.
Hakobyan testified that an Armenian government investigator abducted and
beat him because Hakobyan had submitted repeated complaints to police,
prosecutors, and parliament regarding an official’s corruption. Substantial
evidence does not support the BIA’s nexus determination because Hakobyan’s
testimony established that he was targeted, at least in part, on account of his
political opinion. See Fedunyak v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 1126, 1129-30 (9th Cir.
2007) (petitioner’s testimony that he was targeted for raising complaints about an
extortion scheme established that the persecution was, at least in part, “a response
to his political opinion expressed through his whistle-blowing.”). Because the BIA
erred in its nexus determination, it did not fully consider Hakobyan’s claim of past
persecution and whether Hakobyan has a presumption of future persecution. See
Recinos de Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, we grant the petition as to Hakobyan’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this

-- 2 of 3 --

09-70354 3
conclusion, we need not reach Hakobyan’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of his
motion to remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Hakobyan’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Armenia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
Each party shall bear their own costs on this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --