09-3880-ag
Grigoryan v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A094 041 950
A094 041 951
A094 041 952
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 16 th day of December, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 GERARD E. LYNCH,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 EDGAR GRIGORYAN, NARINE NIKOGHOSYAN,
15 SARGIS GRIGORYAN
16 Petitioners,
17
18 v. 09-3880-ag
19 NAC
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONERS: Marina Shepelsky, Law Offices of
26 Marina Shepelsky, Brooklyn, New
27 York.
28
29 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
30 General; William Peachey, Assistant
1 Director; Ada Bosque, Senior
2 Litigation Counsel; Puneet Cheema,
3 Trial Attorney, Office of
4 Immigration Litigation, Civil
5 Division, United States Department
6 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Petitioners Edgar Grigoryan and Narine Nikoghosyan,
13 natives of the Soviet Union and citizens of Armenia, and
14 their son, Sargis Grigoryan, a native and citizen of
15 Armenia, seek review of an August 18, 2009, order of the BIA
16 affirming the November 14, 2007, decision of Immigration
17 Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying their application for
18 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
19 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Grigoryan, Nos.
20 A094 041 950/951/952 (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2009), aff’g Nos. A094
21 041 950/951/952 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 14, 2007). We
22 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
23 and procedural history in this case.
24 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
25 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See
26 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
2
1 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
3 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
4 We find no error in the agency’s denial of the
5 Petitioners’ application for asylum. As the IJ found, they
6 failed to establish that the harm Edgar Grigoryan
7 (“Grigoryan”) endured bore a nexus to one of the protected
8 grounds enumerated in the Immigration and Nationality Act
9 (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). For applications for
10 asylum and withholding of removal governed by the amendments
11 to the INA made by the REAL ID Act of 2005, “the applicant
12 must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership
13 in a particular social group, or political opinion was or
14 will be at least one central reason for persecuting the
15 applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Castro v.
16 Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2010); Matter of C-T-L-,
17 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 350 (BIA 2010) (applying the “one
18 central reason” provision to withholding of removal as well
19 as asylum).
20 We conclude that although the IJ credited Grigoryan’s
21 testimony that he attended protests in Armenia and was
22 beaten and detained by the police, the IJ reasonably
3
1 determined that Grigoryan’s vague and undetailed testimony,
2 by itself, was insufficient to meet the Petitioners’ burden
3 of proof. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 287-88 (2d Cir.
4 2000).
5 I. Claim Based on Grigoryan’s Political Opinion
6 The Petitioners argue that Grigoryan was beaten and
7 detained by government officials on account of his
8 opposition to ArmenTel, a government-sanctioned monopoly.
9 The IJ reasonably found that the Petitioners did not provide
10 sufficient corroboration to establish the requisite nexus
11 between the harm Grigoryan endured and a protected ground.
12 See Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 197 (2d Cir. 2009)
13 (“[A]n IJ, weighing the evidence to determine if the alien
14 has met his burden, may rely on the absence of corroborating
15 evidence adduced by an otherwise credible applicant unless
16 such evidence cannot be reasonably obtained.”).
17 Specifically, the IJ noted that: (1) the Petitioners did not
18 submit any affidavits from individuals involved with the
19 protests; (2) the Petitioners provided no evidence that the
20 arrests and beatings Grigoryan endured were because of his
21 opposition to ArmenTel; and (3) the background materials the
22 Petitioners submitted did not discuss the protests or how
4
1 critics of ArmenTel were treated in Armenia. Additionally,
2 the IJ noted that Grigoryan testified that he was told
3 during his first arrest that he must close his business
4 because his refusal to use ArmenTel’s Internet service
5 violated Armenian law. In light of this testimony and the
6 lack of corroboration, the agency reasonably concluded that
7 the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. See
8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (requiring that an alien
9 demonstrate that his political opinion will constitute “at
10 least one central reason” for persecuting him).
11 On appeal, the Petitioners argue that the IJ ignored
12 material portions of Grigoryan’s testimony establishing that
13 the Armenian government provided undivided support for
14 ArmenTel and suppressed political speech against the
15 company. However, a reasonable fact-finder would not be
16 compelled to conclude that the agency ignored any material
17 portions of Grigoryan’s testimony. See Jian Hui Shao v.
18 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Xiao Ji
19 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d
20 Cir. 2006). As the IJ correctly noted, Grigoryan’s
21 testimony was contradicted by the Petitioners’ own
22 documents, which indicated that the Armenian government had
5
1 a tense relationship with ArmenTel and undertook actions to
2 force the company to provide better service and that Armenia
3 did not suffer from official censorship or governmental
4 restrictions on the Internet. To the extent the Petitioners
5 argue that the IJ placed undue weight on the country
6 conditions evidence, we generally accord deference to the
7 IJ’s evaluation of documentary evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen,
8 471 F.3d at 342. In light of the IJ’s determination that
9 Grigoryan’s testimony was insufficient on its own to
10 establish the Petitioners’ eligibility for asylum, the IJ’s
11 decision to afford greater weight to the country conditions
12 materials – both the State Department Reports and
13 Grigoryan’s materials – was reasonable. Id.
14 II. Claim Based on Grigoryan’s Imputed Political Opinion
15 The Petitioners also claim that Grigoryan was beaten
16 and detained because Armenian officials suspected that he
17 shared his parents’ anti-government political beliefs.
18 However, the IJ reasonably found that the Petitioners failed
19 to meet their burden of proof because: (1) Grigoryan’s
20 testimony stating that police officers used “foul language”
21 and said “bad things” about his parents did not establish
22 his parents’ political opinion or that he had been arrested
6
1 as a result of their actions or opinions; (2) despite the
2 fact that Grigoryan’s parents lived in New Jersey at the
3 time of his hearing, they did not testify on his behalf; and
4 (3) Petitioners provided no supporting documents to
5 establish the nature of Grigoryan's parents' political
6 involvement or their membership in any political
7 organization. See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 197. We also
8 find unavailing Petitioners’ assertion that the IJ failed to
9 give them proper notice of the additional evidence required
10 to corroborate their claim. The IJ did indicate that he
11 believed the parents’ testimony or other documentation
12 regarding their political activity was necessary, and he
13 afforded the Petitioners an opportunity to explain why they
14 failed to submit that evidence. See id.
15 Finally, we decline to address the Petitioners’
16 unexhausted argument that Grigoryan was persecuted on
17 account of his membership in a particular social group
18 comprised of entrepreneurs. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of
19 Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
22 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
7
1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
9
8