NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARINE MARTIROSYAN ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 22

- 1684 Agency No. A079

- 264

- 024

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19 , 2023 ** Pasadena , California
Before: CLIFTON and SANCHEZ , Circuit Judges, and KORMAN , District Judge

. *** Karine Martirosyan , a native and citizen of Armenia , petitions for review of a final decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for

* 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 Edward Korman , United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York , sitting by designation. 

# FILED

OCT 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 1684

asylu m, withholding of removal , and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) , application for adjustment of status, and waiver of inadmissibility , and finding that she filed a frivolous asylum application . We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S. C. § 1252 (a)(1) , and we deny the petition

. 1. Martirosyan waived any challenges to the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, adjustment of status, inadmissibility waiver, and the agency’s frivolous asylum application finding by failing to present arguments on those matters in her opening bri ef

. See

Martinez

– Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (“ [A] n issue referred to in the appellant's statement of the case but not discussed in the body of the opening brief is deemed waived.” )

. 2. The IJ found that Martirosyan knowingly made a fr ivolous application for asylum by submitting a counterfeit birth certificate in support o f her asylum application despite having received notice of the consequences of doing so

. See Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 208(d)(6) ; 8 C.F.R. §
1208.20 (a)

. At her removal hearing, the IJ probed the inconsistencies in her testimony regarding her identity and multiple birth certificates. Although Martirosyan does not challenge the IJ’s frivolousness finding, she contends she
was de prived of due pr ocess and the right to a neutral factfinder in her removal proceedings

. She points to a few instances in which the I J questioned Martirosyan to resolve discrepancies in her testimony

. T his does not reflect prejudgment or bias from the I J , and the due process clause does not prevent an3 22

- 1684

IJ from examining a witness. Antonio

- Cruz v. I.N.S., 147 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 1998) (rejecting a due process claim premised even when an IJ had
conducted “the lion's share of cross

- examination” in a “ha rsh manner and tone”).
3. W e reject Martirosyan’s contention that the transcript provided by the agency violated Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 17, and that her case
should be remanded to allow her to testify again. Although some portions of the
transcri pt contain the word “indiscernible , ” Martirosyan has not shown that “a better translation would have made a difference in the outcome of the hearing

. ”
See Singh v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004) (“ [ T ] he dissatisfied party bears the burden of ensuring that translations and their transcription are correct and, if the y are not, of properly raising the issue to the reviewing body

or court .” )

. Furthermore, the IJ provided Martirosyan with several opportunities to redo her testimony and complete the record

. W e cannot conclude that a
better translation would have resulted in a different outcome to her removal proceedings. The temporary stay of removal remains in p lace until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION D ENIED
.