Valentina Andraniki Sarksyan; 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALENTINA ANDRANIKI
SARKSYAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70468
Agency Nos. A095-640-594
A095-640-595
A095-640-596
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Valentina Andraniki Sarksyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, and
her children, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying Sarksyan’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70468 2
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and deny the petition for review.
Sarksyan fears persecution from Armenian authorities based on her
husband’s activities with the Dashnaktsutyun political party. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s conclusion that Sarksyan did not establish that she was or
would be persecuted on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to reverse the agency’s finding
“we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”)
(emphasis in original); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-90 (9th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, Sarksyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Petitioners’ opening brief does not raise any challenge to the agency’s denial
of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996)
(stating that issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --