Knarik Shaboyan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Knarik Shaboyan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

418 F. App'x 661

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 2011

Docket09-72351

StatusUnpublished

This text of 418 F. App'x 661 (Knarik Shaboyan v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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

Knarik Shaboyan v. Eric Holder, Jr., 418 F. App'x 661 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Knarik Varuzhani Shaboyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.8d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the incidents in which Shaboyan was forced to the back of the food line and rocks were thrown at the house of the Pentecostal congregation gatherings, even considered cumulatively, did not constitute persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence further supports the BIA’s finding that the harm to her husband and family members were not part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” Shaboyan. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060. In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Shaboyan’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018. Accordingly, Shaboyan’s asylum claim fails.

Because Shaboyan failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Shaboyan did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Armenian government. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. Accordingly, Shaboyan’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Knarik Varuzhani Shaboyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.8d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the incidents in which Shaboyan was forced to the back of the food line and rocks were thrown at the house of the Pentecostal congregation gatherings, even considered cumulatively, did not constitute persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence further supports the BIA’s finding that the harm to her husband and family members were not part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” Shaboyan. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060. In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Shaboyan’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018. Accordingly, Shaboyan’s asylum claim fails.

Because Shaboyan failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Shaboyan did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Armenian government. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. Accordingly, Shaboyan’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 F. App'x 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knarik-shaboyan-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack