Mkrtchyan, et al v. Holder, No. 08-70224 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALVARD MKRTCHYAN; LILIT MKRTCHYAN, No. 08-70224 Agency Nos. A095-875-216 A095-875-217 Petitioners, 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. 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 * 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). ( 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 08-70224

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.