Sandukht Aleksanyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SANDUKHT ALEKSANYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73689
Agency No. A099-737-804
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Aleksanyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s
(Board) final order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) and
we deny the petition.
FILED
JAN 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Substantial evidence supported the Board’s denial of asylum because
Aleksanyan’s alleged mistreatment did not rise to the level of extremity required to
show persecution. See Korablina v. I.N.S., 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998).
Nor did Aleksanyan establish that the harm she suffered resulted from her political
opinions or membership in a protected social group because she conceded that her
alleged mistreatment was due to her son’s complaint against the government. See
Fisher v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Because Aleksanyan did not meet her burden for asylum, the evidence was
insufficient for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Because the Board assumed that Aleksanyan was credible, Aleksanyan’s
arguments regarding the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding are moot.
Substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that Aleksanyan
did not show that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if she returns to
Armenia because her alleged prior mistreatment did not rise to the level of torture.
See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --