Aslanyan v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Aslanyan v. Gonzales

158 F. App'x 793

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 2005

DocketNo. 04-72568

StatusPublished

This text of 158 F. App'x 793 (Aslanyan v. Gonzales) 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

Aslanyan v. Gonzales, 158 F. App'x 793 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Alis Andraniki Aslanyan, a native of Syria and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals which summarily affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1998), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Aslanyan failed to establish past persecution or a well founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 969. The harassment and discrimination Aslanyan experienced in Armenia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). The stabbing of her son by a drunk neighbor is not past persecution. See Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, because Aslanyan’s daughter remains unharmed in Armenia, and because she did not show she was individually targeted for persecution in the face of the general, societal discrimination against people of Azeri or Middle Eastern descent, she failed to show she has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005); see also Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (applicant’s fear of persecution upon return is weakened when family members continue to live in the country without incident).

As Aslanyan is unable to meet the burden of proof for asylum, she necessarily fails to meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Alis Andraniki Aslanyan, a native of Syria and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals which summarily affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1998), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Aslanyan failed to establish past persecution or a well founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 969. The harassment and discrimination Aslanyan experienced in Armenia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). The stabbing of her son by a drunk neighbor is not past persecution. See Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, because Aslanyan’s daughter remains unharmed in Armenia, and because she did not show she was individually targeted for persecution in the face of the general, societal discrimination against people of Azeri or Middle Eastern descent, she failed to show she has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005); see also Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (applicant’s fear of persecution upon return is weakened when family members continue to live in the country without incident).

As Aslanyan is unable to meet the burden of proof for asylum, she necessarily fails to meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F. App'x 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aslanyan-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack