Artour Danielian v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition isn’t appropriate for publication and isn’t 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARTOUR DANIELIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73014
Agency No. A072-517-541
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and SILVERMAN, Circuit
Judges.
Danielian hasn’t established that the evidence compels reversal. See Singh
v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 1998). The events Danielian described didn’t
FILED
FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
rise to the level of persecution. Persecution doesn’t include every sort of treatment
our society regards as unjust or offensive. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th
Cir. 1996). Nor did Danielian present “credible, direct, and specific evidence” to
support his fear of future persecution. Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156,
1159 (9th Cir. 1999).
Because Danielian hasn’t met the standard for asylum, he can’t meet the
more rigorous standard for withholding of removal. Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399
F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). In addition, “substantial evidence supports the
IJ’s denial for relief under” the Convention Against Torture because Danielian
hasn’t presented evidence that it is “more likely than not” that he will be tortured if
returned to Armenia. Id.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --