Ghazaryan, et al v. Holder, No. 07-72703 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 28 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ASHOT GHAZARYAN, Petitioner, No. 07-72703 Agency No. A095-297-253 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. 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. Ashot Ghazaryan, a native of Armenia and citizen of Argentina, petitions pro se 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, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s finding that Ghazaryan did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, because he failed to demonstrate the government was unwilling or unable to control the men who beat and threatened him. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Ghazaryan s asylum claim fails. Because Ghazaryan did not establish eligibility for asylum, it 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). Substantial evidence supports the IJ s denial of Ghazaryan s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Argentina. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-72703

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.