Chaparyan

Chaparyan v. Mukasey

Good Law
309 F. App'x 117
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 20, 2009No. 04-71121California308 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Varduhi Chaparyan and her son, natives and citizens of Armenia, and her husband, Mrktich Chaparyan, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence, Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.2000), treating petitioners’ testimony as credible, see Ka *119 lubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners did not establish past persecution on account of a protected ground because Varduhi Chaparyan failed to show that she was persecuted on account of a political opinion. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 866 (9th Cir.2001) (where the record does not establish a connection between an event and a protected ground, the IJ is not required to accept the petitioner’s belief as fact); see also Kozulin, 218 F.3d at 1115— 17. Furthermore, substantial…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.