KARLO ZARGARYAN; et.al. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KARLO ZARGARYAN; et.al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72346
Agency Nos. A096-051-926
A096-051-927
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.
Karlo Zargaryan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, and her daughter, a
native of Russia and citizen of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NED/Research 07-72346 2
decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 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 the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the brief detention
and beating Zargaryan suffered in Armenia did not rise to the level of persecution.
See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that Zargaryan does not have a well-founded fear of
future persecution based on her husband’s political activities or her ethnicity,
because her husband and similarly situated father remain in Armenia without
incident. See Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th Cir. 1996).
Because Zargaryan did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Zargaryan has failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the
agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-
60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --