NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 16 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VARTAN ABRAMIAN, No. 14-73616 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-645-625 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: NGUYEN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District Judge. Vartan Abramian, a native of Iran, citizen of Ukraine, and ethnic Armenian, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 * 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 John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. U.S.C. § 1252. See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see id., we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. 1. “To prevail on a motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions,” a movant must, among other things, “produce evidence that conditions have changed in the country of removal” and “demonstrate that the evidence is material.” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017). While Abramian’s evidence shows that the conditions in Ukraine were deteriorating rapidly in the months leading up to his motion to reopen, it does not satisfy the materiality requirement. The evidence merely “details conditions affecting the population at large” and lacks the “individualized relevancy” showing “that [his] predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by [his] fellow citizens.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989–90 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998)). Abramian’s only evidence regarding the conditions faced by ethnic Armenians in Ukraine states that “there seems to be no backlash yet against the local Armenian community.” The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. 2. The BIA acknowledged its discretion to reopen the proceedings sua sponte, and we lack jurisdiction to review its decision not to do so. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). Therefore, we dismiss Abramian’s 2 petition to the extent it seeks review of the BIA’s decision not to reopen the proceedings sua sponte. 3. Abramian is not a prevailing party, so his counsel is not entitled to fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340–41 (9th Cir. 1995). PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 3 14-73616 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Vartan Abramian v. William Barr 16 May 2019 Agency Unpublished 301e94b9519da549195c4583eb79787ce2309fb1
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals