HRAIR NAZARI V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72035 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 6 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HRAIR NAZARI; JOULIET AKBARY MASIHY; SELINA NAZARI; SEVADA NAZARI, No. 14-72035 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A088-290-114 A088-290-115 A088-290-116 A088-290-492 v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Hrair Nazari, Jouliet Akbary Masihy, Selina Nazari, and Sevada Nazari, natives of Iran and citizens of Germany, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). decision denying their applications for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Bao Tai Nian v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1227, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 2012). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that the government of Germany was or would be unwilling or unable to control the individuals petitioners fear. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2008) (declining to secondguess an IJ’s construction of a somewhat contradictory country report where the IJ rationally construed the report and analyzed petitioner’s specific situation); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel a finding that the government was unable or unwilling to control perpetrators where petitioner did not give the police the names of any suspects and the police investigated but were unable to solve the crime). Thus, we uphold the BIA’s denial of petitioners’ asylum claims. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2

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.