NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUG 24 2020
TAJADDIN RAFAIL ALIYEV, Nos. 07-70128 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
15-72338
Petitioner, 19-72701
v. Agency No. A098-516-120
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Tajaddin Aliyev seeks review of three final decisions of the Board
of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). We uphold findings of fact unless the evidence
compels a contrary conclusion. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir.
2018). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.
*
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).
Flores v. Barr, 930 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
A. Petition No. 07-70128
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner did
not suffer past persecution. Reasonable minds could differ as to whether the
threats that Petitioner received constituted persecution, so the record does not
compel the conclusion that he suffered persecution. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918
F.3d 1025, 1028–29 (9th Cir. 2019).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner
did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution, because he failed to prove
that relocation to another part of Azerbaijan "would not be possible or reasonable."
Id. at 1029. Petitioner’s family safely relocated, and the people who previously
threatened Petitioner have not sought him or his family in their new home.
Cf. Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that the
petitioner’s testimony did not address "whether the military had questioned his
family about his whereabouts"). Additionally, substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of a nexus
between any threats or actions against him and his political opinions or claimed
status as a whistleblower. Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865–66 (9th Cir. 2001).
Because Petitioner did not suffer past persecution or demonstrate a well-founded
2
fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, his claim for asylum
fails. Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2007).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection.
Petitioner did not meet his burden to show that he would "more likely than not" be
tortured "by or with the acquiescence of a government official or other person
acting in an official capacity" if he were removed to Azerbaijan. Tamang v.
Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010). "[G]eneralized evidence" of cruel
conditions in Azerbaijani prisons does not satisfy the standard for CAT protection.
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
B. Petition No. 15-72338
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s first motion
to reopen, which he conceded was untimely and did not qualify for any exceptions
to the filing requirements. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
2. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to
reopen sua sponte. Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823–24 (9th Cir.
2011).
C. Petition No. 19-72701
The BIA abused its discretion by denying Petitioner’s second motion to
reopen his asylum application. Petitioner established the changed country
3
conditions necessary to avoid the time and number bars that otherwise would apply
to his second motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Although conflicts
between Azerbaijan and Armenia have been ongoing since the early 1990s, the
record shows that leveling false accusations of spying for Armenia against
deserters or current military members, and then torturing or killing the falsely
accused, is a more recent phenomenon that post-dates Petitioner’s first hearing.
And Petitioner now has Armenian friends and coworkers in the United States.
Thus, Petitioner established "a reasonable likelihood that, if returned to
[Azerbaijan], he faces at least a one-in-ten chance of persecution," Salim v. Lynch,
831 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2016), because of his imputed political view of
spying for and supporting Armenia, see Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th
Cir. 2014) (holding that "accusations of ‘acting against the government’ constitute
an imputed political opinion").1
PETITION 07-70128 DENIED. PETITION 15-72338 DENIED IN
PART AND DISMISSED IN PART. PETITION 19-72701 GRANTED AND
REMANDED.
1
In a concurrently filed opinion, we address the BIA’s other reason for
denying Petitioner’s second motion to reopen.
4