Ophelia Muradian, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent, 132 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Ophelia Muradian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of her appeal from an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a),¹  and we deny the petition for review.

We review the factual determinations underlying the BIA's decision for substantial evidence and the BIA's decision should not be reversed absent compelling evidence of persecution. See Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d 902, 905 (9th Cir. 1995).

Muradian contends that the BIA's determination that she failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on her religion, the Krishna Consciousness, by those adhering to the Christian Orthodox Church, is not supported by substantial evidence. This attention lacks merit.

Muradian bases her claim for asylum on the following facts: (1) while attending a university in Armenia, she experienced discrimination, prompting her to withdraw from the university; (2) in 1982, her father was detained for 24 hours by the KGB for distributing Krishna literature in a park; (3) she observed Krishna psychiatric patients in a clinic being fed a diet not conforming to the tenets of Krishna Consciousness; and (4) in 1984, her father lost his job because of his frequent complaints regarding the treatment of Krishna patients. Muradian left Armenia for the United States in August 1991.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Muradian failed to establish eligibility for asylum. First, because she was never threatened, detained, jailed or physically harmed, she cannot establish past persecution. See Desir v. Ilchert 840 F.2d 723, 726-27 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that persecution requires the infliction of suffering or harm).

Second, she did not adduce sufficient evidence to support an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution. See Rodriguez-Rivera v. INS, 848 F.2d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). While Muradian may have experienced and witnessed discrimination, " [p]ersecution is, an extreme concept, which Ordinarily does not include ' [d]iscrimination on the basis of race or religion, as morally reprehensible as it may be.' " Fisher v. INS., 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) quoting Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir1995). Moreover, mistreatment of family members does not establish a well-founded fear of persecution absent a pattern of persecution tied to the alien. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995). Here Muradian fails to provide any nexus between herself and the mistreatment experienced by her father. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.