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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011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
HAMEST KASUMYAN; ELIDA No. 09-70930
AVANSYAN,
Agency Nos. A078-675-848
Petitioners, A079-785-408
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.
Hamest Kasumyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, and her
daughter, Elida Avansyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petition for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and protection under the 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 mistreatment
Kasumyan suffered in Armenia when unidentified individuals disrupted a baptism
in the mountains and a prayer meeting in her home did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th Cir. 2003) (“two
occasions where [petitioner] was ‘pushed’ while attending church services
interrupted by government officials does not compare to the severity of physical
abuse that in other cases we have deemed persuasive to show persecution”).
Petitioners’ contention that the agency did not consider evidence of additional
incidents of persecution was not raised to the BIA. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d
927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to raise an issue to the BIA constitutes a failure to
exhaust remedies and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners do not
have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on their Pentecostal 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
2 09-70930
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, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the
petitioners are not eligible for CAT relief. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70930