David Balasyan v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID BALASYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1840
Agency No.
A071-151-243
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted September 15, 2023
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner David Balasyan, a native and citizen of Azerbaijan, seeks review
of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order reversing the Immigration
Judge’s decision to grant withholding of removal under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the
petition.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
SEP 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-1840
The BIA denied Balasyan’s application for protection under the CAT on the
ground that Balasyan failed to show that he would more likely than not be tortured
if removed to Azerbaijan. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 834
(9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that applicants for withholding of removal under the
CAT must show that they are more likely than not to be tortured if removed to the
proposed country of removal). The evidence does not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (affirming
denial of CAT protection where the record did not indicate a particularized threat
of torture); see also I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992)
(explaining that we must uphold the BIA’s determination unless the evidence
compels a contrary conclusion). A likelihood of persecution or discrimination
upon removal is not sufficient to establish entitlement to CAT protection. See
Medina-Rodriguez v. Barr, 979 F.3d 738, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming the
denial of CAT protection where the record showed that petitioner would likely face
discrimination and persecution but not torture).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 2) is otherwise denied.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --