NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATON

File Name: 14a0097n.06

No. 13-3326

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Before: BOGGS and MOORE, Circuit Judges; BARRETT, District Judge.

*

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Marietta Garnik Manassian petitions this 

court to review a denial of her asylum application by an immigration judge (“IJ”) and the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).1 The IJ and BIA denied the asylum application as having been 

filed beyond the one-year deadline as well as on the merits. Manassian argues that changed 

personal circumstances—denial of an I-130 petition on her behalf—excuses the delay in filing 

and that asylum should have been granted. Because the denial of an I-130 petition is not a 

change in circumstances within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), we 

DENY the petition for review.

 

*

The Honorable Michael R. Barrett, United States District Judge for the Southern District 

of Ohio, sitting by designation.

1Manassian had also applied for withholding of removal and voluntary departure. The IJ 

granted voluntary departure while denying the other forms of relief. Manassian appealed to the 

BIA the denial of her asylum and withholding of removal applications. In her brief to this court, 

Manassian challenges only the BIA’s denial of her asylum application.

MARIETTA GARNIK MANASSIAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW 

OF AN ORDER OF THE 

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION 

APPEALS

OPINION
No. 13-3326

Manassian v. Holder

2

I. BACKGROUND

Marietta Garnik Manassian, a citizen of Armenia, entered the United States in 1993 with 

her then-husband and two children on a J-2 visa as the wife of a J-1 exchange visitor. 

Administrative Record (“A.R.”) at 10 (Oral Decision of the IJ (“Oral Dec.”) at 2). The family 

adjusted status when Manassian’s husband became an H-1B visa holder in 1996. Id. In 1997, 

Manassian’s husband left the United States to return to Armenia, leaving Manassian and their 

daughters behind. Pet’r’s Br. at 13. Manassian’s authorization to remain in the United States 

was set to expire in 1999. A.R. at 10 (Oral Dec. at 2). Manassian and her husband divorced, and 

Manassian’s ex-husband committed suicide in Armenia in 2006. Pet’r’s Br. at 13.

In 2001, Manassian married Todd Dana Greenfield, a United States citizen. Id. at 14. 

Greenfield filed I-130 petitions on behalf of Manassian and her daughters. Id. These I-130 

petitions were denied in October 2007 for failure to appear for a follow-up interview. A.R. at 12

(Oral Dec. at 4). Manassian learned of this denial on December 3, 2007. Pet’r’s Br. at 11. 

Manassian and her daughters were placed in removal proceedings. Id. Manassian filed her 

application for asylum and withholding of removal on July 9, 2008. A.R. at 12 (Oral Dec. at 4).

As part of her asylum application, Manassian alleged that her ex-husband’s family 

blamed her for his suicide. Id. at 11–12 (Oral Dec. at 3–4). Particularly, her ex-husband’s 

nephew had issued threats that he would make her life a living hell by telling everyone that she 

was an American spy and part of the Armenian opposition political party in America. Id. This 

nephew, according to Manassian, was a high-ranking officer in the corrupt Armenian national 

police force. Id.
No. 13-3326

Manassian v. Holder

3

The IJ denied Massanian’s asylum application as being untimely. Id. at 11 (Oral Dec. 

at 3). She found that the changed circumstances—the ex-husband’s death—that led to 

Manassian’s alleged fear of returning to Armenia arose in January 2006. Id. at 13 (Oral Dec. 

at 5). The IJ rejected Manassian’s argument that the denial of the I-130 petition was a qualifying 

type of changed circumstances under the INA or accompanying regulations. Id. Therefore, the 

IJ decided that the asylum application was untimely. Id. at 13–14 (Oral Dec. at 5–6). The IJ also 

determined that, even if the asylum application were timely, Manassian failed to establish a wellfounded fear of persecution and failed to prove that the persecution was based on one of the 

protected grounds. Id. at 21–23 (Oral Dec. at 13–15). Consequently, the IJ concluded that 

Manassian was not entitled to asylum. Id. at 24 (Oral Dec. at 16).

The BIA dismissed Manassian’s appeal, agreeing with the IJ that the denial of an I-130 

petition does not constitute the type of changed circumstances excusing an untimely asylum 

application. A.R. at 3–5 (Decision of the BIA at 1–3).

This petition for review timely followed.

II. JURISDICTION

We have jurisdiction to review “asylum applications denied for untimeliness” “when the 

appeal seeks review of constitutional claims or matters of statutory construction,” but not “when 

the appeal seeks review of discretionary or factual questions.” Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 

743, 748 (6th Cir. 2006). Here, the parties are not in dispute over the factual issues. The dispute 

is whether the denial of an I-130 petition constitutes the type of changed circumstances excusing 

an untimely asylum application. The IJ found that Manassian’s “reliance on a potential legal 

status . . . [is] not the type of changed circumstances contemplated by the Statute or the 
No. 13-3326

Manassian v. Holder

4

accompanying Regulation.” A.R. at 13 (Oral Dec. at 5). This finding by the IJ is an 

interpretation of the statute and regulation—whether such type of event could be a changed 

circumstance interprets the statute and regulation—rather than a discretionary decision—whether 

this particular event constitutes changed circumstances in this case. Thus, this court has 

jurisdiction to review whether the IJ erred in determining that a potential legal-status change is 

not the type of changed circumstance contemplated by the statute.

III. CHANGED PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Manassian argues that the denial of the I-130 petition, by making her subject to removal, 

was “a change in her circumstances allowing her to file her application [for asylum] within a 

reasonable time.” Pet’r’s Br. at 20. This alleged change in her personal circumstance is the only 

ground that Manassian puts forward to justify the lateness of her application. Therefore, it is the 

only ground that this panel considers.

Under the INA, asylum applications typically must be filed within one-year of arrival in 

the U.S. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). A late application “may be considered” when “changed 

circumstances . . . materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” Id. at § 1158(a)(2)(D). 

“Changed circumstances” are defined by regulations as “refer[ring] to circumstances materially 

affecting the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i). Some circumstances 

that affect an applicant’s eligibility for asylum include changes in country conditions in the 

applicant’s country of nationality, id. at § 1208.4(a)(4)(i)(A), or “[c]hanges in the applicant’s 

circumstances that materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum, including changes in 

applicable U.S. law and activities the applicant becomes involved in outside the country of 

feared persecution that place the applicant at risk,” id. at § 1208.4(a)(4)(i)(B). Therefore, while 
No. 13-3326

Manassian v. Holder

5

changed circumstances can excuse a late-filed application, Manassian must demonstrate that the 

change in her circumstances was one that materially affected her eligibility for asylum. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i).

If Manassian were eligible for asylum based on the threats made by her husband’s 

nephew, this eligibility arose in January 2006 when her ex-husband committed suicide and his 

family began making threats against her. Thus, the rejection of the I-130 petition did not 

constitute a changed circumstance within the meaning of the regulation. She could have and 

should have applied for asylum within a reasonable period of time after her ex-husband’s suicide 

and the beginning of the threats by his family members. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii). We 

find no error in the IJ’s and BIA’s determinations that Manassian’s application for asylum was 

untimely.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Manassian’s petition for review.