FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANUSH YELAGHATYAN, No. 08-70761
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-453-609
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Anush Yelaghatyan, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
n.1 (1992), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the numerous
incidents of harassment and discrimination that Yelaghatyan suffered on account of
her Pentecostal religion, even taken cumulatively, did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003).
Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that because
Yelaghatyan practiced her religion without interference for the most part and
because she relocated to her sister’s home without harm prior to leaving Armenia,
she did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Molina-
Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (IJ and BIA entitled to rely on
all relevant evidence in the record to determine whether petitioner has a well-
founded fear of future persecution). Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.
Because Yelaghatyan did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that
she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 08-70761
Contrary to Yelaghatyan’s due process contention, the BIA did not err in
declining to address her CAT claim in its decision because she made no mention of
her CAT claim in her brief to the BIA. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error to establish due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70761