Melsik Danielyan 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NED/Research
xNOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELSIK DANIELYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70952
Agency No. A095-313-076
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Melsik Danielyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NED/Research 08-70952 2
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of
fact, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Danielyan did not
establish past persecution because the beating he experienced at the hands of the
Armenian police and subsequent job loss did not rise to the level of persecution.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Khourassany
v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, substantial evidence
supports the IJ’s conclusion that Danielyan failed to establish a well-founded fear
of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1021-22.
Because Danielyan did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Danielyan has failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the
agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --