Vahe Keshishiani 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VAHE KESHISHIANI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72265
Agency No. A088-131-109
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 19, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Vahe Keshishiani, a native of Iran and citizen of France, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
SEP 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-72265
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the cumulative effect
of the harms experienced by Keshishiani, including two minor beatings by
classmates, vandalism to his car, a threatening note, harassment, and employment
discrimination, do not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319
F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and beating unconnected
with any particular threat did not compel finding that ethnic Albanian suffered past
persecution in Kosovo); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)
(employment discrimination faced by Ukrainian Christian did not rise to level of
persecution). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that Keshishiani
established a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at
1018 (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly,
Keshishiani’s asylum claim fails.
Because Keshishiani failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --