FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KNARIK VARUZHANI SHABOYAN, No. 09-72351
a.k.a. Knarik Varuzhani Petrosyan,
Agency No. A075-306-631
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges
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”).
*
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).
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.3d 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
09-72351
acquiescence of the Armenian government. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
Accordingly, Shaboyan’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
09-72351