FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARA HOVANESYAN, No. 11-71541
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-477-750
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued January 9, 2015
Submitted March 4, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Ara Hovanesyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision (1) affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Against Torture, and (2) denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. Reviewing the BIA’s decision de novo, we conclude that Petitioner was
not deprived of his right to a full and fair hearing by the IJ’s failure to recuse
herself. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921, 925 (9th Cir.
2007). The IJ’s request for the alien number of Petitioner’s expert witness did not
evidence “a personal . . . bias stemming from an ‘extrajudicial’ source which
resulted in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the immigration
judge learned from [her] participation in the case.” Id. at 925 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Nor did the IJ’s demeanor toward the witness reveal “deep-seated
. . . antagonism” against Petitioner. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
2. The IJ did not abuse her discretion in refusing to continue Petitioner’s
hearing to permit him to file an interlocutory appeal from the denial of his recusal
motion. See Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner
was able to address recusal in his appeal to the BIA after his applications for relief
were denied on the merits, and he therefore could not show “good cause” for
granting a continuance. See id. at 1012-14.
3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner was
not likely to be persecuted or tortured as a conscript in the Armenian Army
2
because the record shows that Petitioner had, in fact, aged out of eligibility for
conscription. See Barraza Rivera v. I.N.S., 913 F.2d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1990).
4. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to
remand, which he characterizes as a motion to reopen. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft,
395 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2005) (analyzing the factors for ruling on a
motion to reopen in considering whether the BIA abused its discretion by refusing
to remand). The evidence Petitioner sought to present on remand was duplicative
of evidence available at the time of his original hearing. Thus, the BIA did not
abuse its discretion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the BIA may deny motions to reopen
where the new evidence to be presented is not “qualitatively different” from
previously submitted evidence).
Petition DENIED.
3