FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTYOM MANUKYAN, No. 11-71639
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-239-459
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Artyom Manukyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Manukyan failed to
establish eligibility for asylum based on his past treatment by the Armenian
military or his fear of conscription in the future. See id. at 1187 (forced
conscription or punishment for evasion of military duty generally is not
persecution); Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner
failed to show forced recruitment was on account of a protected ground). Thus,
without a nexus to a protected ground, Manukyan’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because
Manukyan failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if he
returns to Armenia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.
2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-71639