NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFIK MNATSAKANYAN, No. 14-72173
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-117-549
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Rafik Mnatsakanyan, a native of Iran and a citizen of Armenia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mnatsakanyan
failed to establish his and his brother’s Iranian birth was one central reason for any
past mistreatment he suffered in Armenia or for his brother’s death. See
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act
“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Mnatsakanyan failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear
of future persecution on account of his Iranian birth or his ties to the United States.
See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
Mnatsakanyan’s claim for asylum.
Because Mnatsakanyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily cannot 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 agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Mnatsakanyan failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
2 14-72173
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Armenian government if
returned. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72173