Karine Martirosyan 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).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARINE MARTIROSYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70454
Agency No. A095-719-828
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Karine Martirosyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NED/Research 07-70454 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006),
and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We decline to consider the evidence Martirosyan attached to her opening
brief because our review is limited to the administrative record underlying the
BIA’s decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(A); see Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the brief
detentions and beatings Martirosyan suffered, which did not require medical
treatment, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d
336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion
that Martirosyan has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Martirosyan’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Martirosyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Fisher, 79 F.3d at 960-61.

-- 2 of 3 --

NED/Research 07-70454 3
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Martirosyan has not established it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if
she returned to Armenia. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.
2006).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martirosyan’s due process contentions
concerning her removal from the United States because they arise independently of
her final order of removal. See Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 977-79 (9th Cir.
2009) (distinguishing between challenges to final orders of removal over which
this court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and challenges that arise
independently).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Martirosyan’s challenge to the IJ’s
finding that the Department of Homeland Security had sustained the removal
charge under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), because it was not raised before the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --