NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
2 22-1684

asylum, 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 brief. 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 frivolous 

application for asylum by submitting a counterfeit birth certificate in support of

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 deprived of due process and the right to a neutral factfinder in her removal 

proceedings. She points to a few instances in which the IJ questioned 

Martirosyan to resolve discrepancies in her testimony. This does not reflect 

prejudgment or bias from the IJ, and the due process clause does not prevent an 
3 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 “harsh manner and 

tone”).

3. We 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

transcript 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 they 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. We cannot conclude that a 

better translation would have resulted in a different outcome to her removal 

proceedings. 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied. 

PETITION DENIED.