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
pers onal 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 a n I

- 130 petition is not a change in cir cumstances 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 South ern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

1 Manassian 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 brie f to this court, Manassian challenges only the BIA’s denial of her asylum application

. MARIETTA GARNIK MANASSIAN,
P etitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

OPINIONNo. 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 le ft 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 divor ced, 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
blame d her fo r 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 Ame rica. 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 circum stances

— 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 cir cumstances 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 well

founded 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 asy lum. Id. a t 24 (Oral Dec. at 16). The BIA dismissed Manassian’s appeal, agreeing with the IJ that the denial of a n 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 ma tters of statutory construction,” but not “ when the ap peal seeks review of discretiona ry 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 c onstitute s 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 theNo. 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 parti cular event constitutes changed circumstances in this case. Thus, this court has jurisdiction to review whether the IJ erred in det ermining that a potential legal

- status change is not the type of changed circumstance contemplated by the statute.

I I I. CHA NGED 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 as ylum] 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” whe n “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 mat erially 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 c hanges in country conditio ns 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 b ecomes involved in outside the country of feared persecution that place the applicant at risk ,” id. at § 1208.4(a)(4)(i)(B). Therefore, w hileNo. 13

- 3326

Manassian v. Holder

5 changed circumstances can excu se a late

- filed application, Ma na s sian must demonstrate that the change in her circ umstances 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 constit ute 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. § 12 08.4(a)(4)(ii). We find no error in the IJ’s and BIA’s determination s that Manassian’s application for asylum was untimely.
I V . CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Manassian’s petition for review.