Sarmen Keshishian v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARMEN KESHISHIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70554
Agency No. A071-750-125
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Sarmen Keshishian, a native of Iran and citizen of Germany, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
* 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).
FILED
MAY 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
1. To support a claim of persecution by private actors, a petitioner must
show that the government is “unwilling or unable to control” those actors.
Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Substantial evidence, including government reports, news articles,
and Keshishian’s testimony about the police response to his attacks, supports the
agency’s conclusion that Keshishian did not make that showing in this case. See
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The evidence simply
does not compel the conclusion that the German government was unable or
unwilling to control those individuals harassing [the petitioner].”). Thus,
Keshishian’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT
protection because Keshishian failed to show that it “is more likely than not” he
will be tortured “by or . . . with the consent or acquiescence of [the government]” if
returned to Germany. Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --