Rita Petrosyan; Khoren Gasparyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition isn’t appropriate for publication and isn’t 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RITA PETROSYAN; KHOREN
GASPARYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72584
Agency Nos. A097-364-366
A097-364-367
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and SILVERMAN, Circuit
Judges.
1. Because the REAL ID Act doesn’t apply to Rita Petrosyan’s case, the
Board of Immigration Appeals could not demand that she provide evidence to
corroborate her credible testimony. See Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th
FILED
FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
Cir. 2000); Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 899–901 (9th Cir. 2000). Here this error
was harmless, as we deny the petition on other grounds.
2. Petrosyan doesn’t qualify for asylum because her testimony failed to
establish that the harms she suffered were perpetrated “by the government or forces
the government [was] either unable or unwilling to control.” Rahimzadeh v. Holder,
613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). For example,
she couldn’t identify the men who attacked her after she spoke at a political rally,
much less show that they were tied to, or their actions were tolerated by, the
Armenian government.
3. Because Petrosyan fails to satisfy her burden for asylum, she necessarily
fails to satisfy the heavier burden for withholding of removal. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
4. The BIA didn’t base its denial of Convention Against Torture protection
on Petrosyan’s lack of credibility. To the contrary, it reversed the immigration
judge’s adverse credibility finding. Because Petrosyan raises no other challenge to
the denial of CAT protection, she has waived this claim. See Arpin v. Santa Clara
Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --