Araksi Tokramadzhyan v. Jefferson Sessions

699 F. App'x 728
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 26, 2017
Docket15-71369
StatusUnpublished

This text of 699 F. App'x 728 (Araksi Tokramadzhyan v. Jefferson Sessions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Araksi Tokramadzhyan v. Jefferson Sessions, 699 F. App'x 728 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 thus is not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Martinez v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 655, 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 836-37.

The government’s unopposed motion to supplement the administrative record (Docket Entry No. 14) is granted.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shpetim Hoxha v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
319 F.3d 1179 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Nelson Andrade-Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch
828 F.3d 829 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Martinez v. Sessions
873 F.3d 655 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
699 F. App'x 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/araksi-tokramadzhyan-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.