Armine 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 that this case is suitable for**
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMINE MARTIROSYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73513
Agency No. A074-394-423
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Armine Martirosyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUL 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey , 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for
review.
The BIA denied Martirosyan’s asylum claim as time-barred. Martirosyan does
not challenge this finding in her opening brief. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594
F.3d 701, 703 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (where applicant did not contest a finding of
untimeliness, issue is waived).
Martirosyan claims she fears persecution based on her status as the wife of a
successful jeweler who was extorted by corrupt public officials. Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even if Martirosyan’s application
for asylum was timely, she did not establish persecution on account of a protected
ground. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that
“[a] social group of business persons [] is too broad to qualify as a particularized
social group [because] there is neither a voluntary relationship nor an innate
characteristic to bond its members”). Accordingly, Martirosyan’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th
Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Martirosyan failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not she will be

-- 2 of 3 --

3
tortured if returned to Armenia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68
(9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --