FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROZA STEPANYAN, No. 10-71627
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-582-751
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Roza Stepanyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her claim for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings and review de novo the agency’s legal determinations.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the harms Stepanyan
and her family suffered in Armenia did not rise to the level of persecution on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84
(1992); see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment,
discrimination, and economic deprivation do not necessarily constitute
persecution). Further, the BIA’s decision belies Stepanyan’s contention that it only
considered the 2004 incident in finding she did not suffer past persecution.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s decision that Stepanyan does not
have an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution is too speculative).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Stepanyan did not establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured if
returned to Armenia. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-71627