Misak Gavazyan; 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, we therefore deny Gavazyan’s request for oral argument.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MISAK GAVAZYAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72234
Agency Nos. A079-245-070
A079-245-071
A079-245-072
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Misak Gavazyan and his family, natives of the former Soviet Union 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 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72234 2
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 BIA’s determination that lead petitioner
Gavazyan did not suffer past persecution based on the murder of acquaintances in
the government or based on his sister’s injuries, because these harms were not part
of a pattern of persecution closely tied to Gavazyan. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence also supports that BIA’s
determination that Gavazyan’s 1992 detention and interrogation, see Prasad v.
INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995) (minor abuse during brief detention did
not compel finding of past persecution), and the loss of his business did not rise to
the level of past persecution, see Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1186 (confiscation of family
business not past persecution). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Gavazyan failed to establish his father’s death, his 1999 abduction
or his son’s arrest were on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). Petitioners’ request for humanitarian
asylum fails because they did not establish past persecution. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.13(b)(1)(iii).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72234 3
In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (where there is no
presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, country conditions
reports are relevant evidence of whether such a fear is objectively reasonable).
Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that they have not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they will be
tortured if returned to Armenia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --