Tigran Hovhannisyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TIGRAN HOVHANNISYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71404
Agency No. A095-308-867
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Tigran Hovhannisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) April 29, 2011 order reaffirming its
July 22, 2004 order dismissing Hovhannisyan’s appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-71404 2
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s decision that a petitioner has not established eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal. Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir.
2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Hovhannisyan failed to
establish the harm he suffered or fears is on account of a protected ground. See
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (noting that, to reverse a BIA
decision under the substantial evidence standard of review, “we must find that the
evidence not only supports . . . but compels” a contrary conclusion) (emphasis in
original). Contrary to his contention, the evidence does not compel the conclusion
that Hovhannisyan’s actions “were directed toward a governing institution, . . .
[and not] only against individuals whose corruption was aberrational.” Grava v.
INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2000); cf. Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d
1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner exposed systemic government corruption).
Accordingly, Hovhannisyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
We lack jurisdiction to review Hovhannisyan’s humanitarian asylum claim,
because he did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-71404 3
We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of CAT relief,
because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, we lack
jurisdiction to review Hovhannisyan’s contention that the agency violated his due
process rights by denying his CAT claim and his subsequent motion to reopen.
See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --