Sona Chiliyan; Yurik Harutyunyan 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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SONA CHILIYAN;
YURIK HARUTYUNYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-74750
Agency Nos. A096-050-173
A096-050-197
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Sona Chiliyan, and her son Yurik Harutyunyan, natives and citizens of
Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
FILED
MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 05-74750 2
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 factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused the untimely filing of petitioners’ asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th
Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Because the record is unclear as to why Chiliyan was targeted by various
groups, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even if credible,
petitioners failed to show that they were or would be persecuted in Armenia on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84
(1992). Accordingly, their withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured if they
return to Armenia. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
The record is inadequate to grant relief on the petition for review. The
proper procedure for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is to file a motion
to reopen before the BIA so that the record may be augmented.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --