09-3880-ag

Grigoryan v. Holder

BIA

Abrams, IJ

A094 041 950

A094 041 951

A094 041 952

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 16 day of December, two thousand ten. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 Chief Judge,

9 ROBERT D. SACK,

10 GERARD E. LYNCH,

11 Circuit Judges. 

12 _______________________________________

13

14 EDGAR GRIGORYAN, NARINE NIKOGHOSYAN,

15 SARGIS GRIGORYAN

16 Petitioners, 

17

18 v. 09-3880-ag

19 NAC

20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

21 ATTORNEY GENERAL

22 Respondent.

23 ______________________________________

24

25 FOR PETITIONERS: Marina Shepelsky, Law Offices of

26 Marina Shepelsky, Brooklyn, New

27 York.

28

29 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

30 General; William Peachey, Assistant
2

1 Director; Ada Bosque, Senior

2 Litigation Counsel; Puneet Cheema,

3 Trial Attorney, Office of

4 Immigration Litigation, Civil

5 Division, United States Department

6 of Justice, Washington, D.C.

7

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

11 is DENIED.

12 Petitioners Edgar Grigoryan and Narine Nikoghosyan,

13 natives of the Soviet Union and citizens of Armenia, and

14 their son, Sargis Grigoryan, a native and citizen of

15 Armenia, seek review of an August 18, 2009, order of the BIA

16 affirming the November 14, 2007, decision of Immigration

17 Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying their application for

18 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

19 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Grigoryan, Nos.

20 A094 041 950/951/952 (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2009), aff’g Nos. A094

21 041 950/951/952 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 14, 2007). We

22 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

23 and procedural history in this case.

24 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

25 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See

26 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
3

1 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 

2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d

3 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

4 We find no error in the agency’s denial of the

5 Petitioners’ application for asylum. As the IJ found, they

6 failed to establish that the harm Edgar Grigoryan

7 (“Grigoryan”) endured bore a nexus to one of the protected

8 grounds enumerated in the Immigration and Nationality Act

9 (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). For applications for

10 asylum and withholding of removal governed by the amendments

11 to the INA made by the REAL ID Act of 2005, “the applicant

12 must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership

13 in a particular social group, or political opinion was or

14 will be at least one central reason for persecuting the

15 applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Castro v.

16 Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2010); Matter of C-T-L-,

17 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 350 (BIA 2010) (applying the “one

18 central reason” provision to withholding of removal as well

19 as asylum). 

20 We conclude that although the IJ credited Grigoryan’s

21 testimony that he attended protests in Armenia and was

22 beaten and detained by the police, the IJ reasonably
4

1 determined that Grigoryan’s vague and undetailed testimony,

2 by itself, was insufficient to meet the Petitioners’ burden

3 of proof. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 287-88 (2d Cir.

4 2000).

5 I. Claim Based on Grigoryan’s Political Opinion

6 The Petitioners argue that Grigoryan was beaten and

7 detained by government officials on account of his

8 opposition to ArmenTel, a government-sanctioned monopoly. 

9 The IJ reasonably found that the Petitioners did not provide

10 sufficient corroboration to establish the requisite nexus

11 between the harm Grigoryan endured and a protected ground. 

12 See Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 197 (2d Cir. 2009)

13 (“[A]n IJ, weighing the evidence to determine if the alien

14 has met his burden, may rely on the absence of corroborating

15 evidence adduced by an otherwise credible applicant unless

16 such evidence cannot be reasonably obtained.”). 

17 Specifically, the IJ noted that: (1) the Petitioners did not

18 submit any affidavits from individuals involved with the

19 protests; (2) the Petitioners provided no evidence that the

20 arrests and beatings Grigoryan endured were because of his

21 opposition to ArmenTel; and (3) the background materials the

22 Petitioners submitted did not discuss the protests or how
5

1 critics of ArmenTel were treated in Armenia. Additionally,

2 the IJ noted that Grigoryan testified that he was told

3 during his first arrest that he must close his business

4 because his refusal to use ArmenTel’s Internet service

5 violated Armenian law. In light of this testimony and the

6 lack of corroboration, the agency reasonably concluded that

7 the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. See 

8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (requiring that an alien

9 demonstrate that his political opinion will constitute “at

10 least one central reason” for persecuting him).

11 On appeal, the Petitioners argue that the IJ ignored

12 material portions of Grigoryan’s testimony establishing that

13 the Armenian government provided undivided support for

14 ArmenTel and suppressed political speech against the

15 company. However, a reasonable fact-finder would not be

16 compelled to conclude that the agency ignored any material

17 portions of Grigoryan’s testimony. See Jian Hui Shao v.

18 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Xiao Ji

19 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d

20 Cir. 2006). As the IJ correctly noted, Grigoryan’s

21 testimony was contradicted by the Petitioners’ own

22 documents, which indicated that the Armenian government had
6

1 a tense relationship with ArmenTel and undertook actions to

2 force the company to provide better service and that Armenia

3 did not suffer from official censorship or governmental

4 restrictions on the Internet. To the extent the Petitioners

5 argue that the IJ placed undue weight on the country

6 conditions evidence, we generally accord deference to the

7 IJ’s evaluation of documentary evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen,

8 471 F.3d at 342. In light of the IJ’s determination that

9 Grigoryan’s testimony was insufficient on its own to

10 establish the Petitioners’ eligibility for asylum, the IJ’s

11 decision to afford greater weight to the country conditions

12 materials – both the State Department Reports and

13 Grigoryan’s materials – was reasonable. Id. 

14 II. Claim Based on Grigoryan’s Imputed Political Opinion

15 The Petitioners also claim that Grigoryan was beaten

16 and detained because Armenian officials suspected that he

17 shared his parents’ anti-government political beliefs. 

18 However, the IJ reasonably found that the Petitioners failed

19 to meet their burden of proof because: (1) Grigoryan’s

20 testimony stating that police officers used “foul language”

21 and said “bad things” about his parents did not establish

22 his parents’ political opinion or that he had been arrested
7

1 as a result of their actions or opinions; (2) despite the

2 fact that Grigoryan’s parents lived in New Jersey at the

3 time of his hearing, they did not testify on his behalf; and

4 (3) Petitioners provided no supporting documents to

5 establish the nature of Grigoryan's parents' political

6 involvement or their membership in any political

7 organization. See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 197. We also

8 find unavailing Petitioners’ assertion that the IJ failed to

9 give them proper notice of the additional evidence required

10 to corroborate their claim. The IJ did indicate that he

11 believed the parents’ testimony or other documentation

12 regarding their political activity was necessary, and he

13 afforded the Petitioners an opportunity to explain why they

14 failed to submit that evidence. See id. 

15 Finally, we decline to address the Petitioners’

16 unexhausted argument that Grigoryan was persecuted on

17 account of his membership in a particular social group

18 comprised of entrepreneurs. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of

19 Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007).

20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

22 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
8

1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

6 FOR THE COURT: 

7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

8

9