SAHAKYAN v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-03No. No. 19-71377

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing Sahakyan's appeal and upholding the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

Ani Sahakyan, an Armenian national, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of her asylum and withholding-of-removal application. The court examined whether the immigration agency's factual determinations were supported by substantial evidence. The agency found that the mistreatment Sahakyan endured in Armenia, even when considered together, did not constitute persecution under immigration law, and that she had not demonstrated a credible fear of future persecution meeting the legal standard.

The court affirmed the agency's decision because substantial evidence supported both findings. The opinion emphasized that persecution is a severe legal concept requiring more than conduct that society deems offensive. Since Sahakyan could not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future harm, her asylum claim failed. Consequently, she also failed to qualify for withholding of removal, which requires the same threshold showing.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether harm experienced in Armenia constituted persecution under asylum law
Whether applicant demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution
Standard of review for agency factual determinations in immigration cases

Procedural posture

Sahakyan petitioned for judicial review of the BIA's dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her asylum and withholding-of-removal application.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Ani Sahakyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judges decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that the harm Sahakyan experienced in Armenia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution); see also INS. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it[.]”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Persecution ․ is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys determination that Sahakyan failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022 (petitioner failed “to present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”); see also Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).

Thus, Sahakyans asylum claim fails.

Because Sahakyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, she failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.