Manukyan v. Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 11 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMEN MANUKYAN; GOHAR No. 23-1766 MELIKSETYAN; SARA Agency Nos. MANUKYAN; LILIA MANUKYAN, A216-986-709 A216-986-708 Petitioners, A216-986-710 A216-986-711 v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 6, 2025** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER, MILLER, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Lead Petitioner, Armen Manukyan (“Manukyan”), his wife and two daughters, are natives and citizens of Armenia. They petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing their appeal of the Immigration * 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). Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Agency denied asylum and withholding because Petitioners failed to establish that police harmed or threatened Manukyan “because of” a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Manukyan testified only that officers beat him to drive him out of business and eliminate their competition. Petitioners have identified no evidence that would compel a conclusion that the officers also targeted him because of his political opinion, so the Agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023) (We may not disturb a nexus determination unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” (quoting Ruiz- Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022))). The beatings that Manukyan experienced did not amount to torture, and substantial evidence supports the Agency’s denial of Petitioners’ applications for CAT protection. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2022). Petitioners’ request for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act is denied because they are not eligible “prevailing part[ies].” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Meza-Vazquez v. Garland, 993 F.3d 726, 728 (9th Cir. 2021). 2 23-1766 PETITION DENIED. 3 23-1766