NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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