NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ARAM DIPLOSHYAN, No. 13-72824
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-968-427
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Aram Diploshyan petitions for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). Diploshyan asserts that the BIA erred when it held that he failed to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1
establish past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, and a
likelihood of torture if he returned to Armenia.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Diploshyan
failed to establish past persecution. We have described persecution as “an extreme
concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive.” Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Viewed separately or cumulatively, Diploshyan’s reported incidents do not compel
a finding of past persecution. See id. at 975-76 (denying an asylum claim under
similar circumstances). Further, as the BIA noted, the fact that Diploshyan
returned to Armenia after three of the four events underlying his claims had
occurred severely undermines his claim that he fears future persecution. See
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). Diploshyan’s failure to
establish eligibility for asylum necessarily precludes “withholding of removal,
which imposes a heavier burden of proof.” Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. Diploshyan
failed to produce any evidence illustrating a clear probability of an individualized
2
risk of torture if he returns to Armenia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1068 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION DENIED.
3