FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GOURGEN MOVSISIAN, 

No. 03-70298 Petitioner,

Agency No.

v.  A70-966-525

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted

August 24, 2004—San Francisco, California

Filed January 20, 2005

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge,

Alfred T. Goodwin, and A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Tashima;

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Goodwin

907
COUNSEL

Tim Everett, Los Angeles, California, for the petitioner. 

Constance A. Wynn, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. 

MOVSISIAN v. ASHCROFT 909
OPINION

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: 

Gourgen Movsisian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming the immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum and withholding of deportation. Movsisian also seeks review of the BIA’s summary

denial of his motion to reopen and remand asylum proceedings. Because the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(“IIRIRA”) apply, see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150

(9th Cir. 1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a,

as amended by IIRIRA § 309(c)(4). We deny the petition for

review as to Movsisian’s claims for asylum and withholding

of deportation. We grant the petition for review as to the

BIA’s summary denial of Movsisian’s motion to reopen. 

I. BACKGROUND

Movsisian, a Pentecostal Christian from Armenia, entered

the United States in 1993, when he was 16 years old. Movsisian presented testimony, which the IJ deemed credible, that

he left Armenia with his mother to avoid compulsory military

service. Movsisian stated that the war was very dangerous,

and that he feared being killed given the lack of “law and

order” in Armenia. Movsisian explained that one of his neighbors was conscripted and beaten to death by drunken officers.

Movsisian also testified that the Armenian authorities do

not allow Pentecostal Christians to practice their religion

freely. Movsisian and his mother had to worship in the homes

of other church members, and one of his pastors was arrested

in 1992 or 1993. However, Movsisian did not know what

would happen if he returned to Armenia and practiced his

faith. 

910 MOVSISIAN v. ASHCROFT
The IJ denied asylum and withholding of deportation, holding that Movsisian’s fear of being drafted did not provide a

basis for relief. The IJ also found that the evidence did not

support Movsisian’s claim that he was a genuine religious

conscientious objector to military service. Finally, the IJ

determined that Movsisian’s future fear of persecution on

account of his Pentecostal religion was speculative. 

Movsisian appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. While his

appeal was pending, Movsisian filed a motion to reopen and

remand with the BIA. In his motion, Movsisian sought to

reopen asylum proceedings to submit evidence regarding his

evolving religious beliefs, his deepening opposition to compulsory military service, and deteriorating human rights conditions in Armenia. Movsisian’s personal declaration,

submitted with his motion to reopen, detailed his fears that he

would be prevented from practicing his faith if he was conscripted, and that he would be punished for his refusal to obey

any orders that conflicted with his religious beliefs. Movsisian

also stated that his mother has been subjected to religious

harassment and discrimination since her return to Armenia.

Movsisian also included declarations from two ministers, and

reports on Armenian country conditions showing mistreatment of religious minorities. 

The BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s opinion under 8

C.F.R. § 3.1(e)(4). In a footnote, the BIA denied without

explanation Movsisian’s motion to reopen and remand. Movsisian filed a timely petition for review. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Asylum and Withholding

[1] In order to be eligible for asylum or withholding of

deportation, Movsisian must show the requisite fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in

a particular social group, or political opinion. See Hoque v.

MOVSISIAN v. ASHCROFT 911
Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2004). We review the

IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See id. 

[2] Movsisian first challenges the IJ’s denial of asylum and

withholding, and contends that the evidence compels a finding that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account

of his conscientious objection to military service, and his Pentecostal beliefs. Considering only the evidence presented to

the IJ, we disagree. First, forced conscription or punishment

for evasion of military duty generally does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground. See Castillo v.

INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The fact that a

nation forces a citizen to serve in the armed forces along with

the rest of the country’s population does not amount to persecution.”). Second, Movsisian presented no evidence that the

Armenian government would target him for conscription or

punishment on account of his religion or other protected

ground. See Canas-Segovia v. INS, 970 F.2d 599, 601 (9th

Cir. 1992) (holding that religious conscientious objectors did

not establish religious persecution because they did not show

that the government intended to persecute them for their

beliefs). Finally, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient

to compel a finding that Movsisian has a well-founded fear of

persecution on account of his religious beliefs. See Nagoulko

v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that petitioner’s fear of future religious persecution was speculative).

In failing to qualify for asylum, Movsisian necessarily failed

to meet the more stringent standard of proof for withholding

of deportation. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.

1995). 

B. Motion to Reopen and Remand

Movsisian also challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion

to reopen asylum proceedings. The motion to reopen, filed

while his appeal was pending before the BIA, is treated as a

motion to remand to the IJ for further proceedings. See Rodriguez v. INS, 841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1987); see also 8

912 MOVSISIAN v. ASHCROFT
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(4). We review the BIA’s denial of a

motion to reopen and remand for abuse of discretion. See

Lainez-Ortiz v. INS, 96 F.3d 393, 395 (9th Cir. 1996). The

BIA abuses its discretion when it acts “arbitrarily, irrationally,

or contrary to the law.” Id. 

Movsisian contends that the BIA abused its discretion in

denying his motion to reopen and remand without explanation. The government counters that the BIA is not required to

articulate its reasons for denying a motion to reopen where,

as here, the motion “is basically a thinly disguised attempt to

relitigate” the merits. The government also contends that the

BIA’s summary denial of Movsisian’s motion is consistent

with the BIA’s streamlining procedures, which this court

upheld in Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-52

(9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the BIA’s summary affirmance

procedure does not violate due process). 

[3] Here, the BIA denied Movsisian’s motion to reopen

stating, in toto: “The respondent’s motion to reopen is

denied.” Unlike the BIA’s streamlining process, where the

IJ’s decision becomes the final agency determination, see id.

at 849, where the BIA entertains a motion to reopen in the

first instance, and then fails to provide specific and cogent

reasons for its decision, we are left without a reasoned decision to review. 

[4] We have long held that the BIA abuses its discretion

when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions.

See, e.g., Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th

Cir. 2002) (remanding motion to reopen to apply for suspension of deportation where BIA did not engage in substantive

analysis or articulate any reasons for its decision); Arrozal v.

INS, 159 F.3d 429, 432-33 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that the

“BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to state its reasons and

show proper consideration of all factors when weighing equities and denying relief” (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)); see also Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134,

MOVSISIAN v. ASHCROFT 913
1141-42 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that conclusory statements

are insufficient, and that the BIA must provide an explanation

showing that it has “heard, considered, and decided” the issue

(internal quotation marks omitted)). 

[5] We recently held that “the BIA must address and rule

upon remand motions, giving specific, cogent reasons for a

grant or denial.” Narayan v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 1065, 1068

(9th Cir. 2004) (remanding petition where the BIA failed to

rule on a pending motion to remand asylum proceeding to

consider evidence of worsened country conditions); see also

Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 955 (6th Cir. 2004) (remanding unexplained denial of motion to remand to the BIA “for

the provision of a rational explanation for the denial,” while

affirming the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of

removal); cf. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 936 (9th Cir.

2004) (vacating and remanding the BIA’s denial of an asylum

claim, while affirming the denial of withholding of removal

and Convention Against Torture claims). 

[6] Here, in ruling on Movsisian’s motion to reopen and

remand, the BIA denied it without any explanation. We reject

the government’s argument that no explanation should be

required in streamlined cases as unsupported by any reason or

authority. Accordingly, we conclude that the BIA abused its

discretion in denying Movsisian’s motion to reopen without

articulating its reasons. See Narayan, 384 F.3d at 1068. 

III. CONCLUSION

[7] We deny the petition for review as to Movsisian’s challenge to the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of deportation. We grant the petition for review with regard to

Movsisian’s motion to reopen, and we remand to allow the

BIA to provide specific and cogent reasons supporting its

determination. 

Each party shall bear its own costs on review. 

914 MOVSISIAN v. ASHCROFT
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part, and

DENIED in part.

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, and dissenting

in part: 

I concur in part II. B. of the opinion, holding that the BIA

abused its discretion in failing to articulate reasons for denying Movsisian’s motion to reopen, and remanding for a statement of reasons. However, I do not join in Part II. A. which

expresses an opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s case for

asylum and withholding of deportation. No convincing reasons have been called to my attention for this court to decide,

on the merits, that the petitioner has a losing case, and then

to remand the case to the forum from which the appeal was

taken, so that forum could state its reasons for the denial. All

courts dealing with the flood of immigration petitions are too

busy, and our forests are too depleted, to justify this formality.

MOVSISIAN v. ASHCROFT 915