NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LILIT GORGINYAN; ARAKSYA No. 16-70048 NORDIKYAN; SARKIS NORDIKYAN, Agency Nos. A095-410-720 Petitioners, A095-410-721 A077-998-592 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. SARKIS NORDIKYAN, AKA Zorik No. 16-70322 Manvelyan, Petitioner, Agency No. A077-998-592 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 11, 2022** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, IKUTA, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Lilit Gorginyan, Sarkis Nordikyan, and their minor daughter, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motions to reopen removal proceedings. We review for an abuse of discretion and deny the petitions. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and reviews the “determination of legal questions de novo, and factual findings for substantial evidence”). 1. A petitioner must generally file a motion to reopen removal proceedings “within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). However, this deadline does not apply to a motion to reopen “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 2. Petitioners moved to reopen removal proceedings based on an alleged change in country conditions since their removal proceedings. Petitioners argue ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 that the BIA erred in determining that the evidence in support of their motions— increased persecution of journalists and political activists after their initial removal proceedings and in connection with a June 2015 protest over electricity rate hikes—did not demonstrate changed country conditions in Armenia. In support of their motions to reopen, Petitioners submitted Lilit’s affidavit, letters from various people in her former village in Armenia, several news articles, and country conditions evidence.1 The affidavit and articles report that police injured journalists, damaged their equipment, or detained them along with protestors in connection with the June 2015 protest. The country conditions evidence mentions “several incidents of violence toward journalists in connection with citizens’ protests,” that the “government did not always uphold” the rights of “freedom of speech and press,” and that the government did not conduct credible investigations of attacks on journalists. The BIA reasonably concluded that this evidence did not demonstrate a change in country conditions because it described continuing issues, as illustrated by evidence submitted in support of Lilit’s original asylum application, which …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals