FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHENIK NAZARYAN; HOVHANNES No. 10-73492
DANIELYAN,
Agency Nos. A097-356-369
Petitioners, A097-356-370
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Zhenik Nazaryan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, and Hovhannes
Danielyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
*
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).
decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Nazaryan failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the Armenian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
However, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s nexus
determination because Nazaryan’s testimony and declaration established that the
extortion demands and threats from local police were motivated, at least in part, by
her husband’s political opinion regarding Armenia. See Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d
732, 735-37 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (“The evidence viewed as a whole compels
the inescapable conclusion that the harm and continuing threats the NPA inflicted
upon Ms. Borja were motivated not just by an isolated desire for money, but in fact
were triggered by her initial hostile political confrontation with its agents.”). Here,
the BIA incorrectly stated that the police detained Nazaryan’s husband only after
they learned Nazaryan had relatives in the U.S., when the record shows the police
2 10-73492
beat and detained him because of his political statements before learning of the
U.S. relatives. Accordingly, we grant the petition as to Nazaryan’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 10-73492