FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROZA KHACHATUROVA; SEVAK No. 09-70045
PAPANYAN,
Agency Nos. A098-469-175
Petitioners, A099-044-495
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Roza Khachaturova, a native of Azerbaijan and citizen of Armenia, and
Sevak Papanyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that the threat Khachaturova
received from police in 2000, or the interrogation and mistreatment she received by
police in 2004, even considered cumulatively, rise to the level of persecution.
Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s past persecution finding. See id.; Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Although [petitioner’s]
experiences are disturbing and regrettable, they do not evince actions so severe as
to compel a finding of past persecution.”). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that petitioners have failed to show a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Khachaturova failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it
necessarily follows that she cannot meet the more stringent standard for
withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.
2006).
2 09-70045
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Khachaturova failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured if removed to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
We decline to review materials that are not part of the administrative record.
See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70045