FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOVSEP MURADYAN, No. 07-74912
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-380-099
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Hovsep Muradyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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,
Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997), and we deny the petition for
review.
Muradyan fears persecution from unknown members of the government who
sought information regarding the murder of his former employer. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Muradyan did not establish that he
was or would be persecuted on account of an actual or imputed political opinion.
See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992) (to reverse the agency’s
finding “we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but
compels it”) (emphasis in original); Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1489-90. Accordingly,
Muradyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v.
Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Muradyan’s contention that the BIA erred by not addressing his CAT claim
is belied by the record. Muradyan does not otherwise challenge the denial of his
CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-74912