NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

A.H., No. 23-1483 Agency No. Petitioner, A095-570-707 v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted July 8, 2024 San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When, as here, the BIA

conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. decision, “our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the

IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Soriano-Vino v. Holder, 653 F.3d 1096, 1099

(9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Reviewing the BIA’s

factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo, Flores

Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), we grant the petition in part

and remand.

1. With respect to her asylum claim,1 Petitioner does not allege past

persecution. Consequently, the burden remains on her to prove a well-founded

fear of future persecution. See Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 645–46 (9th Cir.

2021). To be well-founded, Petitioner’s “fear of persecution must be both

subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922,

924 (9th Cir. 2004). A petitioner can satisfy the subjective component by credibly

testifying that she genuinely fears future persecution. Id. The objective

component can be satisfied by showing “[e]ven a ten percent chance that the

applicant will be persecuted in the future.” Id. at 925 (quoting Knezevic v.

Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2004)). Lastly, Petitioner must also

demonstrate that she cannot avoid future persecution by reasonably relocating

1 The government has waived the argument that Petitioner’s asylum application was untimely. See United States v. Dreyer, 804 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (arguments not raised in answering brief are considered waived).

2 23-1483 within her country of origin. See Singh v. Garland, 97 F.4th 597, 606 (9th Cir.

2024). Here, Petitioner contends that she will be persecuted in her home country

of Armenia on account of her abusive former husband and her sexual orientation.

The BIA found that Petitioner subjectively feared her former husband, but that this

fear was not objectively reasonable. In support, the BIA relied on evidence that

indicated Petitioner’s former husband does not appear to have a continued interest

in harming her. Said differently, the BIA found that Petitioner was not even “ten

percent” likely to be harmed by her former husband in Armenia. Canales-Vargas

v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 743 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Sael, 386 F.3d at 925).

Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d

336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995).

However, with respect to Petitioner’s fear of harm on account of her sexual

orientation, the BIA lost its footing. The BIA stated that Petitioner has not

established that her fear of future persecution on account of her sexual orientation

is objectively reasonable. But instead of citing to record evidence or adopting

portions of the IJ’s order in support of this statement, the BIA proceeded to explain

that Petitioner would be able to avoid persecution by relocating within Armenia. It

is unclear whether the BIA denied Petitioner’s claim on the ground that she is

unlikely to be persecuted in Armenia—because there is a less than ten percent

likelihood of harm rising to the level of persecution anywhere in the country—or

3 23-1483 because she could reasonably relocate within Armenia to reduce the risk of

persecution from above ten percent to below ten percent. To the extent it meant

the latter, the decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the record

compels the conclusion that the risk of harm Petitioner faces due to her sexual

orientation is the same country-wide, and not limited to one geographic area.2 We

cannot conduct a proper review of the BIA’s order when the basis of the decision is

unclear. See, e.g., Garcia Gomez v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 1050, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007)

(“[T]he BIA’s sparse ruling was inadequate to enable [the Court of Appeals] to

perform any meaningful review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Franco–

Rosendo v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2006) (“In order for the court to

exercise our limited authority, there must be a reasoned explanation by the BIA of

the basis for its decision.”). We therefore grant Petitioner’s request to review her

claim for asylum and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.

2. A petitioner is entitled to withholding of removal if she can establish a

clear probability that her life or freedom will be threatened upon return to her

2 The country conditions evidence about treatment of LGBTQ people discusses Armenia as a whole. For example, a Human Rights Watch report on Armenia revealed that “90% of the population is hostile” to LGBTQ people and “support limits on their rights.” An Amnesty International report found that “[h]omophobia and transphobia are deeply ingrained in the society in Armenia,” and that LGBTQ people “face discrimination in all areas of life, including education, housing, employment, and when accessing healthcare.” Another report found “homophobia to be widespread and deeply ingrained in Armenian society.”

4 23-1483 home country on account of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular

social group, or political opinion.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th

Cir. 2010) (quoting Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1199 (9th Cir. 2007)). The

clear probability standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than the

well-founded fear standard for asylum because withholding of removal is a

mandatory form of relief. Ahmed, 504 F.3d at 1199. Here, the BIA affirmed the

IJ’s denial of Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal because it

affirmed the IJ’s denial of her application for asylum. Accordingly, because the

grounds for denying asylum are unclear and the withholding denial was premised

on the asylum denial, we also remand for further proceedings on Petitioner’s

withholding claim.

3. With respect to her application for relief under CAT, Petitioner bears

“the burden of establishing that she will more likely than not be tortured with the

consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to her native country.”

Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). Petitioner did not

suffer past torture in Armenia, and there is nothing in the record to show that she is

likely to suffer torture should she return to Armenia. See Hernandez v. Garland, 52

F.4th 757, 769 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Demonstrating torture requires a much greater

showing of harm than demonstrating persecution, itself an extreme concept.”)

(cleaned up). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner

5 23-1483 failed to submit sufficient evidence to show that any future harm would be inflicted

with the requisite degree of state action. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d

1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Evidence that the police were aware of a particular

crime, but failed to bring the perpetrators to justice, is not in itself sufficient to

establish acquiescence in the crime.”). Accordingly, we affirm the BIA’s denial of

Petitioner’s claim for CAT relief.

PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED.

6 23-1483