N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NSHAN AYANIAN, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-70332 Age n c y No. A077-310-327
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 9, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON a

nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s a nd C ARR , *** Se n ior Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Nsha

n Ay ania n pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of his m otion to re ope n. W e de ny the pe t ition. 

# FIL ED

SEP 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble Ja m e s G. C arr, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.1. The B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Ay ania n ’ s untim e ly
m otion to re o pe n h i s re m ova l proc e e dings. In orde r to m e rit re o pe ning unde r the
c ha nge d c irc um s ta

nc e s e xc e ption to the

filing de a d line for m otions to re ope n, Ay a nia n bore the burde n of showing tha t his e vide nc e of c h ange d c ountry c onditions “ is m a t e ria l a

nd wa s not a

va ila ble and would not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d or pre se nte d at the pre vious proc e e ding.” 8 U.S.C
. § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(i)-(ii); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii). The B IA a c te d within its disc re tion whe n c onc l uding that the e vide nc e Ay a

nia n pre se nte d to support his m otion is im

m a te ria l to his
c la im s for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C A T). 1 W h ile Ay ania n ’ s e v ide nc e sugge sts m istre a tm e nt of both dra ft e va de rs a

nd m ilita ry c onsc ripts, se e also Muradin v. Gonzale z , 494 F.3d 1208 (9th C ir. 2007), it wa s not “ irra tiona l, a rbitra ry , or c ontra

ry to la w” for the B IA to c onc lude that he did not show tha t the Arm e nia

n gove rnm e nt would
c onside r him

to be e ithe r a

dra ft e va de r or a

c onsc ript. Se e Go v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th C ir. 2014). M ore ove r, Ay ania n fa ile d to show tha

t the Arm e nia

n

1 W e a lso GR

ANT the gove rnm e nt’ s m otion to strike the portions of Ay a nia n’ s brie f tha

t re ly on the 2010 U.S. Sta

te De p artm e n t R e port, whic h is not pa rt of the C e rtifie d Adm inistra tive R e c ord. S

e e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“ [T] he c ourt of a ppe a ls sha ll de c ide the pe tition only on the a dm inistra tive re c ord . . . .” ). 2gove rnm e nt would a c quie s c e to a ny a l le ge d future torture a t the ha

nds of m o ne y le nde rs. 2. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Ay a n ia n’ s re m a ining a

rgum e nts be c a

use he did not ra ise the m be fore the B IA. 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d); Rojas-Garc ia v
. Ashc roft , 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ B e fore a pe titione r c an ra ise an argum e nt on a

ppe a l, the pe titione r m

ust first ra ise the issue be fore the B IA or IJ.” ). W e a lso c annot a ddre ss Ay ania n’ s c onc e rns with thea djudic at ion of his origina l
a pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd C A T re lie f be c a

use tha t c a se is a lre a dy fina l, s e eAy anian v . Gonzale s , 165 F. App’ x 520 (9th C i r. 2006), a nd only the de nia l of his m otion to re ope n is prope rly be fore us. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D IN PART , DISM ISSE D IN PART .

3Ayanian v. Lynch , No. 11

- 70332 PREGERSON , Cir cuit Judge , dissenting : I would grant the petition
. 

# FILED SEP 16 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

1