FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARAMAYIS SHAHBAZYAN; et al., No. 08-71519
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A075-657-858
A075-657-859
v. A075-657-860
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
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.
Aramayis Shahbazyan and his family, natives of Iran and citizens of
Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the brief detention and
mistreatment Shahbazyan suffered in Armenia did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-20 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners do not have a
well-founded fear of future persecution based on their Seventh Day Adventist
religion. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he
IJ and the BIA are entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including
a State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated
that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”).
Because petitioners did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that they did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, petitioners’ contention that CAT relief was denied solely on the
basis of an adverse credibility determination is belied by the record. Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the petitioners are not eligible for
2 08-71519
CAT relief. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71519