Paykar Ghazaryan; Yeranuhi Isayan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAYKAR GHAZARYAN; YERANUHI
ISAYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73145
Agency Nos. A099-405-506
A099-405-507
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Paykar Ghazaryan and Yeranuhi Isayan, natives and citizens of Armenia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
DEC 5 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ghazaryan’s claim
that the police randomly beat him and others at two political demonstrations, took
down his name, and that he later received threatening phone calls, did not rise to
the level of past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2003). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that the harm
Ghazaryan experienced as a result of his financial dispute with the general lacked a
nexus to a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52
(9th Cir. 2001) (record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner was attacked
because of his political opinion and not a personal dispute); cf. Grava v. INS, 205
F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2000) (exposure of corruption that is “inextricably
intertwined with governmental operation” is political). The record does not
compel the conclusion that Ghazaryan has a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(petitioner’s claim of future fear was speculative). Accordingly, petitioners’
asylum claim fails.
11-73145 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Because petitioners failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that they have not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured
by or with the acquiescence of the government of Armenia. See Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73145 3

-- 3 of 3 --