NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KARINE PETROSYAN; HARUTYUN No. 18-70639 KHACHATRYAN; SERGEY KHACHATRYAN, Agency Nos. A098-824-758 A098-824-759 Petitioners, A098-824-760 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 11, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, GOULD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Harutyun Khachatryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his second motion to reopen. Khachatryan claims his wife, Karine Petrosyan, and his son, Sergey * 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). Khachatryan, as derivative beneficiaries.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Petitioners began the process of seeking relief from deportation in 2005, after having overstayed their temporary tourist visas. On May 20, 2005, Petitioners submitted an affirmative application for asylum. An asylum officer did not grant Petitioners’ asylum application and referred it to the Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge denied Petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) later that year. The BIA dismissed Petitioners’ appeal in April 2007, and our court denied a petition for review in February 2009. Petrosyan v. Holder, 312 F. App’x 899, 900 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioners filed a motion to reopen in December 2009, which the BIA denied in 2010. Our court denied a petition for review of that decision in 2017. Petrosyan v. Lynch, 672 F. App’x 756, 757 (9th Cir. 2017). Petitioners filed the instant motion to reopen on June 26, 2017. Petitioners acknowledge that this second motion to reopen is untimely and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), but they argue that reopening should 1 Unless otherwise specified, “Khachatryan” refers to the Lead Petitioner, Harutyun Khachatryan. We refer to Khachatryan, Petrosyan, and Sergey Khachatryan collectively as “Petitioners.” 2 be granted despite these procedural bars because of a material change in circumstances in Armenia, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Petitioners’ motion contends that Khachatryan’s political activities in the United States have made him a target of the Armenian government. Petitioners have offered evidence that Khachatryan participated in demonstrations against the Armenian government while living in the United States in 2007 and 2008. Khachatryan’s cousin filed an affidavit stating that he and Khachatryan’s other relatives were detained by Armenian police once, in or around 2008, because of Khachatryan’s opposition activities. Khachatryan also stated that he received an anonymous call at an unknown date,2 during which the caller told him that he “shouldn’t forget that [he had] relatives in Armenia” and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals