Hovhanes Vermanyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HOVHANES VERMANYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71224
Agency No. A098-536-419
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Hovhanes Vermanyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of
Azerbaijan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71224 2
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
With respect to past harm in Azerbaijan, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Vermanyan’s asylum
application’s omission of his only claim of personal mistreatment in Azerbaijan.
See id. at 1039-40. With respect to future harm, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s conclusion that Vermanyan failed to establish a clear probability of
persecution in Azerbaijan on account of his Armenian ethnicity. See Tamang v.
Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010). Vermanyan now contends there
is a pattern or practice of persecution, and that he would be singled out as a
member of a disfavored group. We lack jurisdiction to consider these claims
because Vermanyan did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented
below). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Vermanyan’s withholding of
removal claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71224 3
Finally, we also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Vermanyan did not raise it to the BIA. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --