
    Sandukht ALEKSANYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73689.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 18, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 23, 2013.
    Asbet Issakhanian, Law Offices of Asbet A. Issakhanian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aleksanyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (Board) final order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supported the Board’s denial of asylum because Aleksa-nyan’s alleged mistreatment did not rise to the level of extremity required to show persecution. See Korablina v. I.N.S., 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1998). Nor did Aleksanyan establish that the harm she suffered resulted from her political opinions or membership in a protected social group because she conceded that her alleged mistreatment was due to her son’s complaint against the government. See Fisher v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

Because Aleksanyan did not meet her burden for asylum, the evidence was insufficient for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Because the Board assumed that Alek-sanyan was credible, Aleksanyan’s arguments regarding the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding are moot.

Substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that Aleksanyan did not show that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if she returns to Armenia because her alleged prior mistreatment did not rise to the level of torture. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     