NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARAKSI SEROPOVNA No. 15-71369 TOKRAMADZHYAN, AKA Araksi Seropovna Tokramdzhyan, Agency No. A028-137-853 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Araksi Seropovna Tokramadzhyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and * 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). thus is not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Martinez v. Sessions, No. 14-70339, 2017 WL 4552543 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2017). We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Tokramadzhyan failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Armenia on account of a protected ground. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003) (to qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that it is more probable than not that she would suffer future persecution); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Tokramadzhyan failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Armenian government. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836- 37. The government’s unopposed motion to supplement the administrative record (Docket Entry No. 14) is granted. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71369 15-71369 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Araksi Tokramadzhyan v. Jefferson Sessions 26 October 2017 Agency Unpublished 8c40d15efdb10bbfb220b94408e13cd5a13f7bc6
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals