NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VAHAGN HOVHANNISYAN, No. 19-71459 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-941-836 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 2, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and R. COLLINS,*** District Judge. Dissent by Judge NGUYEN Vahagn Hovhannisyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). The BIA agreed with the IJ that Hovhannisyan (1) did not show that the harm he suffered in Armenia in connection with his participation in political demonstrations rises to the level of past persecution, and (2) did not meet his burden to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the BIA’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review.1 1. Hovhannisyan testified that, following his attendance at an anti- establishment political rally in Armenia in April 2017, he was beaten by police and then detained for two days and warned to stop attending the rallies, and that after his attendance at another political rally two weeks later he was briefly detained and beaten by the President’s nephew and other individuals.2 He contends that these two incidents “collectively” rise to the level of past persecution and that the BIA’s contrary determination was erroneous. In order for us to reverse the BIA’s determination, however, Hovhannisyan must show “that the evidence he presented 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not discuss them in detail here. 2 Hovhannisyan conceded below that the President’s nephew was a “private actor,” not a government official. 2 was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find” persecution. Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting INS v. Elais-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483–84 (1992)). Here, as in Prasad, “[a]lthough a reasonable factfinder could have found [these incidents] sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.” Id. at 340. In particular, we note that neither incident resulted in serious injuries requiring medical treatment, there is no indication that Hovhannisyan was repeatedly targeted or that the events were related, there is no evidence that the government has a continued interest in Hovhannisyan, and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals