Garo Krikor Gulesserian, a.k.a. Gary Krikor Gulesserian v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARO KRIKOR GULESSERIAN, a.k.a.
Gary Krikor Gulesserian,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73171
Agency No. A021-558-794
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Garo Krikor Gulesserian, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUL 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir.
2013). We review de novo claims of due process violations in deportation
proceedings. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that a protected ground was one
central reason behind the assault, kidnapping and extortion that Gulesserian
suffered in Lebanon. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir.
2009) (“to demonstrate that a protected ground was ‘at least one central reason’ for
the persecution, an applicant must prove that such ground was a cause of the
persecutors’ acts”); Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2009)
(evidence does not “compel the opposite conclusion just because it would also
support a different result”).
With respect to future fear, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that the likelihood of future harm was too speculative. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of Gulesserian’s CAT claim,
because he has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government of Lebanon if he is returned. See
12-73171 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Gulesserian’s
contention that the BIA misinterpreted the provisions of CAT and failed to
consider all of the evidence.
Finally, we reject Gulesserian’s argument that the IJ violated his due process
by failing to credit fully his experts’ evidence, because the record reflects the IJ
considered the experts’ reports and testimony and offered specific reasons for
limiting its weight. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process violation). We also reject Gulesserian’s
remaining due process claims, because Gulesserian had a full and fair hearing and
a reasonable opportunity to present his evidence. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d
1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73171 3

-- 3 of 3 --