Alvard Mkrtchyan; Lilit Mkrtchyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALVARD MKRTCHYAN; LILIT
MKRTCHYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70224
Agency Nos. A095-875-216
A095-875-217
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alvard Mkrtchyan and Lilit Mkrtchyan, natives and citizens of Armenia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70224 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny
the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Mkrtchyan’s brief detention
and the threat she received rise to the level of past persecution. See Prasad v. INS,
47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995) (minor abuse of Indo-Fijian during 4-6 hour
detention did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that Mkrtchyan’s fear of future persecution is not
objectively reasonable. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because Mkrtchyan did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that
she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Mkrtchyan failed to show that it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured if removed to Armenia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --