NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEVORG SUKIASYAN, AKA Maxim No. 15-73523 Chekan, Agency No. A099-903-951 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 17, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: NGUYEN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and BAYLSON,*** District Judge. Gevorg Sukiasyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his untimely * 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). *** The Honorable Michael M. Baylson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. motion to reopen. Sukiasyan filed the motion seeking a new application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) due to changed country conditions in Armenia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review a BIA decision on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. 1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was no evidence of changed conditions in Armenia. Sukiasyan did not put forth any new evidence showing that the types of harm he fears in Armenia have increased or intensified, nor was his evidence “qualitatively different from the evidence presented at his asylum hearing.” Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). The articles and report he relied upon state that the Armenian government continues to target those active in opposition politics, particularly in protest settings. Although the articles may support a conclusion that protests have increased, they do not say that the government’s response has been qualitatively or materially different. Rather, the evidence shows that the rates of injuries and deaths resulting from government oppression are stagnant, if not lower than in prior years. Sukiasyan therefore presented no evidence that oppressive conditions are increasing or intensifying in Armenia. 2. The BIA also did not abuse its discretion by noting a prior adverse 2 credibility determination against Sukiasyan. “[T]he BIA may not make adverse credibility determinations . . . in denying a motion to reopen.” Yang v. Lynch, 822 F.3d 504, 509 (9th Cir. 2016). Facts presented in supporting affidavits “must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable.” Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). Although the BIA found the prior adverse credibility determination notable, its determination that Sukiasyan did not adequately support his claim of changed conditions rests on more than that notation alone. First, the BIA refused to credit Sukiasyan’s sworn declaration from 2012 because it related to allegations of persecution that predated his original merits ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals