Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARTASHES KHACHATURYAN; No. 25-4254 ARIANNA KHACHATURYAN; ROBERT Agency Nos. KHACHATURYAN; A. K.; ANNA A220-286-084 HOVHANNISYAN, A220-286-085 A220-286-086 Petitioners, A220-286-088 A220-286-087 v. TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 22, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: BUMATAY, VANDYKE, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges. Petitioners Artashes Khachaturyan, his wife, and their children petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an * 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). Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The lead Petitioner is a native of Armenia and citizen of Russia.1 Petitioners seek protection from both Armenia and Russia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. We review the BIA’s determination that a petitioner is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection for substantial evidence. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992); Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 839–40 (9th Cir. 2021). Under the substantial evidence standard, “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. 537, 544 (2026) (citation modified). “When the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning and adds some of its own, we review the BIA’s decision and those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relied.” Torres-Casas v. Blanche, 182 F.4th 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 2026) (citation modified). 1. On this record, the factual evidence does not compel the conclusion that Mr. Khachaturyan faced past persecution in Armenia and Russia or that he has a 1 Arianna Khachaturyan is a native and citizen of Armenia, as is her youngest daughter. The couple’s son is a native and citizen of Russia, and their eldest daughter is a native of Spain and citizen of Russia. Mr. Khachaturyan’s wife and children are derivative beneficiaries of his application. 2 25-4254 reasonable fear of future persecution. Mr. Khachaturyan moved to Russia in 2003, obtained citizenship there in 2014, and renounced Armenian citizenship in 2017. He alleges he suffered assaults by Russian nationalists and police because of his Armenian ethnicity, in incidents from August to December 2019. Over the years he was in Russia, Mr. Khachaturyan and his family were repeatedly going “back and forth” between Russia and Armenia, cumulatively spending several months per year in each. In December 2019, Mr. Khachaturyan returned to Armenia on a more permanent basis, believing the political situation had improved. When he learned that was not the case, he participated in political protests from November 2020 to January 2021 and was allegedly arrested and beaten by police. In August 2021, he reentered Russia for about a week to accompany his wife who was applying for a Mexican visa at the consulate; they both then flew from Russia to Mexico together, then entered the United States. “It is well established in this court that an alien’s history of willingly returning to his or her home country militates against a finding of past persecution or a well- founded fear of future persecution.” Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017–18 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The ability to ‘travel freely’ and to ‘leave ... without hindrance’ undermines a reasonable fear of future persecution.” (quoting Khourassany v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2000))); Belayneh v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting 3 25-4254 petitioner “returned to Ethiopia three times without incident”); Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner’s “voluntary return to Fiji was indicative of [his] own belief that it would be safe and appropriate for him to live in Fiji”); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006). Given the record of extensive “back and forth” travel over a period of years between the two countries in which Petitioners allege persecution, and their ability to cross those national borders without interference by either country, we cannot say that the record compels the conclusion that Petitioners offered sufficiently credible evidence that they suffered past persecution or have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in these countries. We thus conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.2 2. The IJ also denied Petitioners CAT claim. The BIA found that Petitioners failed to meaningfully challenge that ruling and considered the claim waived. Petitioners do not raise their CAT claim on appeal and so we do not consider it. PETITION DENIED.3 2 The IJ and BIA found that Petitioners were firmly resettled in Russia, which barred their asylum claim. Because the firm resettlement bar does not apply to the other forms of relief Petitioners seek, see Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019), and would thus not resolve this petition, we decline to reach the issue. 3 Petitioners’ Motion to Stay Removal (Dkt. 4) is denied. 4 25-4254