NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 6 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARIS KARAMYAN, No. 18-71939 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-706-897 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 4, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: KELLY,*** GOULD, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Karamyan asks this court to reverse the BIA’s denial of his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel previously vacated oral argument in light of Petitioner’s motion to extend the time to file his supplemental brief. As the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, the panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument and submits this case on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. untimely and number-barred motion to reopen. Reviewing the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), we affirm. Because Karamyan’s motion to reopen is time- and number-barred, he bears the burden of presenting material evidence of both “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or . . . deportation”1 and “a prima facie case for the relief sought.” See id. (first quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); then quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)). The BIA “[can]not make credibility determinations on motions to reopen and must accept as true the facts asserted by the movant, unless they are inherently unbelievable.” Silva v. Barr, 965 F.3d 724, 736 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). But “a prima facie case of the clear probability of persecution cannot be established from speculative conclusions or vague assertions.” Id. (citation omitted). In support of his well-founded fear of persecution, Karamyan’s declaration 1 On October 28, 2020, the panel asked for supplemental briefing addressing a potential conflict between exceptions to the numerosity limitation in the statute and its implementing regulation. In separate filings, the parties did not dispute how this potential conflict should be interpreted and concluded any arguments relating to this issue had been waived. We decline to reach this issue as we are “generally limited to addressing the claims and arguments advanced by the parties.” See Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). We therefore assume without deciding that a showing of changed country conditions can exempt an alien from the numerosity limits in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). See Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 2 relies primarily on three letters from his sister, a friend, and an unknown source. The BIA found these foundational letters were “too vague and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals