FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 23 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXANDER MINAS DAWOOD No. 19-70192 MINASIAN, Agency No. A208-081-660 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 14, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Alexander Minasian (Minasian), a native and citizen of Bahrain, seeks review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Minasian also submits that the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred by denying the last of his several requests for a continuance. In 2010, Minasian came to the United States on a visitor visa shortly after he resigned from his job with a luxury car and jewelry company owned by a prominent Bahraini family. In 2012, a Bahraini court convicted Minasian in absentia of forgery and breach of trust, sentencing him to 10 years’ imprisonment. A warrant was also issued for his arrest in 2012. His conviction stemmed from his former employment, and he alleges that his employer influenced the judicial proceedings. In 2015, Minasian applied for asylum. Minasian maintained that he feared mistreatment from the corrupt Bahraini court and while imprisoned. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Minasian failed to file his asylum application within the one-year time limit and that no exception applies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); see also Al Ramahi v. Holder, 725 F.3d 1133, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2013) (applying substantial evidence standard and describing exceptions to one-year filing deadline: “changed circumstances” or “extraordinary circumstances”). Minasian argues that the timeliness of his asylum claim should be measured from when he first learned of the issuance of an arrest warrant (2015) rather than when he was convicted (2012). 2 We disagree. Minasian’s asylum claim is premised on his position that the Bahraini conviction was illegally obtained. Minasian knew of the conviction in 2012 and hired an attorney to appeal it, believing it to be illegal. Indeed, even before the conviction, Minasian had learned that a civil lawsuit had been converted into the criminal case, a procedure Minasian alleges was unusual and only possible due to the family’s influence. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that no changed circumstances or extraordinary circumstances existed to excuse the untimely filing. See Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2008). 2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Minasian failed to clearly articulate a particular social group. See Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018) (requiring a clear …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals