Krikor Guzelian v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRIKOR GUZELIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71295
Agency No. A078-440-630
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Krikor Guzelian, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUN 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-71295 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d
962, 966 (9th Cir. 1998), and we deny the petition for review.
Guzelian does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum
application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief
are waived). We reject Guzelian’s humanitarian asylum contention because it is
foreclosed by the agency’s time-bar determination.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Guzelian failed to
establish past persecution because Guzelian failed to show the harm he suffered
during the civil war in Lebanon occurred, even in part, on account of a protected
ground. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Asylum generally
is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a
protected ground.”); cf. Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)
(requisite nexus established based on both petitioner’s belief and persecutor’s use
of derogatory slur). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that
Guzelian failed to establish that he more likely than not would be persecuted upon
his return to Lebanon. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001)
(petitioner’s return trips and similarly-situated family members’ continued

-- 2 of 3 --

11-71295 3
presence in country undermined claim of fear of future persecution for purposes of
withholding). Accordingly, Guzelian’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Guzelian failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Lebanon. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.
2005). Guzelian fails to overcome the presumption that the agency reviewed the
evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --