Laura Durgaryan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAURA DURGARYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72724
Agency No. A079-248-711
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 8, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Laura Durgaryan petitions for review of the order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(IJ) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 14 2014
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 --

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny the petition for review.
Even if we were to assume Durgaryan suffered from past persecution based
on any one or all three incidents, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that the incidents were not committed by the Armenian government
or by forces that it was unable or unwilling to control. See Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d
871, 878 (9th Cir. 2013).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Durgaryan
does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her Pentecostal
religion. Durgaryan failed to present objective evidence that Pentecostals in
Armenia face persecution on account of their religion. See Molina-Estrada v. INS,
293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he IJ and the BIA are entitled to rely on
all relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in
considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to
fear future persecution.”).
Because Durgaryan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her claim for
withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Durgaryan failed to establish that she more likely than not will be tortured
2

-- 2 of 3 --

if she returns to Armenia. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48
(9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --