13-871

Hambardzumyan v. Holder

BIA

Hom, IJ

A088 527 924

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 Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 6th 4 day of October, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________

12

13 SIRUN HAMBARDZUMYAN,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 13-871

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Alexander J. Segal, New York, NY.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

26 General; Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle,

27 Senior Litigation Counsel; James A.

28 Hurley, Attorney, Office of

29 Immigration Litigation, United

30 States Department of Justice,

31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is

3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for

4 review is DENIED.

5 Sirun Hambardzumyan, a native of the Soviet Union and

6 citizen of Armenia, seeks review of a February 8, 2013,

7 decision of the BIA affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)

8 May 18, 2011, denial of Hambardzumyan’s second motion to

9 reopen. In re Sirun Hambardzumyan, No. A088 527 924 (B.I.A.

10 Feb. 8, 2013), aff’g No. A088 527 924 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City

11 May 18, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

12 underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

13 We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of

14 discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.

15 2006). It is undisputed that Hambardzumyan’s motion was

16 untimely because it was filed approximately three years

17 after the agency’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

18 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing motion must be filed within

19 90 days of final administrative decision). There is no time

20 limit, however, for moving to reopen “based on changed

21 country conditions arising in the country of nationality or

22 the country to which removal has been ordered, if such

23 evidence is material and was not available and would not

2
1 have been discovered or presented at the previous

2 proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also

3 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 

4 We find no error in the agency’s determination that

5 Hambardzumyan failed to demonstrate a material change in

6 conditions in Armenia. “In determining whether evidence

7 accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material

8 change in country conditions that would justify reopening,

9 [the agency] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions

10 submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time

11 of the merits hearing below.” In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec.

12 247, 253 (BIA 2007); see also Norani v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d

13 292, 294 (2d Cir. 2006). 

14 As the agency found, the State Department’s 2007

15 International Religious Freedom Report for Armenia reveals

16 that there was no change in the status of religious freedom

17 since the prior reporting period, the general population

18 harbored negative attitudes towards Jehovah’s Witnesses, and

19 Jehovah’s Witnesses were verbally targeted and experienced

20 several assaults. The same report for 2010 similarly

21 provides that there was no change in the status of religion

22 freedom since the prior reporting period, leaflets were

3
1 distributed that contained messages hostile to Jehovah’s

2 Witnesses, and there was one incident in which a Jehovah’s

3 Witness Kingdom Hall was set on fire. Thus, both reports

4 show ongoing hostility towards Jehovah’s Witnesses, but not

5 a material change in conditions between 2007 and 2010. 

6 Consequently, the record supports the agency’s determination

7 that Hambardzumyan did not demonstrate a change in country

8 conditions in Armenia that would excuse the untimely filing

9 of her motion to reopen.

10 Because the timeliness of Hambardzumyan’s motion to

11 reopen is dispositive, the agency was not required to

12 determine whether Hambardzumyan established her prima

13 facie eligibility for relief. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S.

14 24, 25 (1976)(“As a general rule courts and agencies are not

15 required to make findings on issues the decision of which is

16 unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

17 Finally, Hambardzumyan’s allegation of IJ bias is

18 unavailing. The IJ merely commented that Hambardzumyan’s

19 exhibits were not highlighted or tabbed as required by the

20 Immigration Court’s Practice Manual. Given that the IJ then

21 considered all of the documents, there is no basis for a

22 claim of bias and no indication that Hambardzumyan was

4
1 deprived of due process. See Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478,

2 490 (2d Cir. 2008).

3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

4 DENIED. 

5 FOR THE COURT: 

6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

7

8

9

5