Sarksyan, et al v. Holder, No. 08-70468 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 25 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALENTINA ANDRANIKI SARKSYAN; et al., No. 08-70468 Agency Nos. A095-640-594 A095-640-595 A095-640-596 Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Valentina Andraniki Sarksyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, and her children, 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 Sarksyan s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and * 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). relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and deny the petition for review. Sarksyan fears persecution from Armenian authorities based on her husband s activities with the Dashnaktsutyun political party. Substantial evidence supports the agency s conclusion that Sarksyan did not establish that she was or would be persecuted on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to reverse the agency s finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it ) (emphasis in original); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-90 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Sarksyan s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005). Petitioners opening brief does not raise any challenge to the agency s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-70468

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.