CLARIS AROJIAN V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-74691 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 13 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CLARIS AROJIAN, aka Klarik Vartanian, aka Klarik Orogian, No. 08-74691 Agency No. A096-353-040 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 6, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and GWIN, District Judge.** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Claris Arojian petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 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. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s finding that the cumulative harms that Arojian experienced in Denmark do not rise to the level of past persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2009); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s finding that Arojian failed to demonstrate that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977. Because Arojian failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence supports the BIA s denial of CAT relief. Arojian failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Danish government if she returns to Denmark. See Wakkary, 588 F.3d at 1067-68. 2 Finally, the BIA did not err by concluding that the IJ properly declined to recuse himself during Arojian s removal proceedings. See Matter of Exame, 18 I. & N. Dec. 303, 306 (BIA 1982). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3

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.