Zmrukht Muradyan 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 and therefore Muradyan’s request for oral argument is
denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZMRUKHT MURADYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71461
Agency No. A095-296-638
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Zmrukht Muradyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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
JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-71461 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Muradyan
failed to establish the discrimination, harassment, and rock throwing she
experienced in Armenia, even considered cumulatively, constituted past
persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003);
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s findings that Muradyan did not demonstrate a well-founded
fear of future persecution because her voluntary return to Armenia following the
most significant incident of harm undermined her claim. See Loho v. Mukasey,
531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Muradyan’s asylum claim
fails.
Because Muradyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Muradyan failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not she will be tortured
in Armenia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-71461 3
Contrary to Muradyan’s contention to the court, the record reflects that the
agency considered the letter she submitted in support of her claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --