Varvara Ispiryan v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VARVARA ISPIRYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74005
Agency No. A089-661-608
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Varvara Ispiryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
MAR 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo due process contentions,
Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ispiryan’s past
instances of mistreatment, even in the aggregate, did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003)
(evidence of employment and educational discrimination, beating of fellow
Christians, and death threats did not compel a finding of past persecution). In
addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ispiryan
failed to establish a threat of harm to Jehovah’s Witnesses so systematic or
pervasive as to amount to a pattern or practice of persecution in Armenia. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not compel
the conclusion that petitioner established a pattern or practice of persecution
against Chinese Christians in Indonesia). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Ispiryan did not demonstrate a sufficiently
particularized threat of persecution under a disfavored group analysis. See Halim
13-74005 2

-- 2 of 3 --

v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 978-80 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, we deny the petition as to
Ispiryan’s asylum claim.
Because Ispiryan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 (petitioner’s burden
of proof for withholding of removal is more demanding than asylum).
Ispiryan did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief in her brief to the
BIA. We therefore reject Ispiryan’s contention that the BIA erred in failing to
evaluate her CAT claim. Similarly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Ispiryan’s
contention concerning the merits of her CAT claim because she did not exhaust it
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, we reject Ispiryan’s contention that the agency violated her due
process rights by ignoring certain facts, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,
603 (9th Cir. 2006), or by not addressing her CAT claim, see Larita-Martinez v.
INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation where no
error).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-74005 3

-- 3 of 3 --