ARAKSI TOKRAMADZHYAN V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-71369 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARAKSI SEROPOVNA TOKRAMADZHYAN, AKA Araksi Seropovna Tokramdzhyan, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71369 Agency No. A028-137-853 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Araksi Seropovna Tokramadzhyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and * 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). thus is not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Martinez v. Sessions, No. 14-70339, 2017 WL 4552543 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2017). We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Tokramadzhyan failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Armenia on account of a protected ground. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003) (to qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that it is more probable than not that she would suffer future persecution); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Tokramadzhyan failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Armenian government. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 83637. The government’s unopposed motion to supplement the administrative record (Docket Entry No. 14) is granted. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71369

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.