09-38 80-ag

Grigoryan v. Holder BIA A bra ms,IJ A094 041 950 A094 041 951 A094 041 952 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FI LED 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, Assistant2 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 1 0 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 1 1 is DENIED. 1 2 Petitioners Edgar Grigoryan and Narine Nikoghosyan, 1 3 natives of the Soviet Union and citizens of Armenia, and 1 4 their son, Sargis Grigoryan, a native and citizen of 1 5 Armenia, seek review of an August 18, 2009, order of the BIA 1 6 affirming the November 14, 2007, decision of Immigration 1 7 Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying their application for 1 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 1 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Grigoryan , Nos. 2 0 A094 041 950/951/952 (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2009), aff’gNos. A094 2 1 041 950/951/952 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 14, 2007). We 2 2 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 2 3 and procedural history in this case. 2 4 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 2 5 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See 2 6 Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The3 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 1 0 asylum and withholding of removal governed by the amendments 1 1 to the INA made by the REAL ID Act of 2005, “the applicant 1 2 must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership 1 3 in a particular social group, or political opinion was or 1 4 will be at least one central reason for persecuting the 1 5 applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Castro v. 1 6 Holder , 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2010); Matter of C-T-L- , 1 7 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 350 (BIA 2010) (applying the “one 1 8 central reason” provision to withholding of removal as well 1 9 as asylum). 2 0 We conclude that although the IJ credited Grigoryan’s 2 1 testimony that he attended protests in Armenia and was 2 2 beaten and detained by the police, the IJ reasonably4 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

The Petitioners argue that Grigoryan was beaten and 6 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 1 0 sufficient corroboration to establish the requisite nexus 1 1 between the harm Grigoryan endured and a protected ground. 1 2 See Chuilu Liu v. Holder , 575 F.3d 193, 197 (2d Cir. 2009) 1 3 (“[A]n IJ, weighing the evidence to determine if the alien 1 4 has met his burden, may rely on the absence of corroborating 1 5 evidence adduced by an otherwise credible applicant unless 1 6 such evidence cannot be reasonably obtained.”). 1 7 Specifically, the IJ noted that: (1) the Petitioners did not 1 8 submit any affidavits from individuals involved with the 1 9 protests; (2) the Petitioners provided no evidence that the 2 0 arrests and beatings Grigoryan endured were because of his 2 1 opposition to ArmenTel; and (3) the background materials the 2 2 Petitioners submitted did not discuss the protests or how5 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 1 0 least one central reason” for persecuting him). 1 1 On appeal, the Petitioners argue that the IJ ignored 1 2 material portions of Grigoryan’s testimony establishing that 1 3 the Armenian government provided undivided support for 1 4 ArmenTel and suppressed political speech against the 1 5 company. However, a reasonable fact-finder would not be 1 6 compelled to conclude that the agency ignored any material 1 7 portions of Grigoryan’s testimony. See Jian Hui Shao v. 18 Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Xiao Ji 1 9 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d 2 0 Cir. 2006). As the IJ correctly noted, Grigoryan’s 2 1 testimony was contradicted by the Petitioners’ own 2 2 documents, which indicated that the Armenian government had6 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 1 0 establish the Petitioners’ eligibility for asylum, the IJ’s 1 1 decision to afford greater weight to the country conditions 1 2 materials – both the State Department Reports and 1 3 Grigoryan’s materials – was reasonable. Id. 14 II. Claim Based on Grigoryan’s Imputed Political Opinion 1 5 The Petitioners also claim that Grigoryan was beaten 1 6 and detained because Armenian officials suspected that he 1 7 shared his parents’ anti-government political beliefs. 1 8 However, the IJ reasonably found that the Petitioners failed 1 9 to meet their burden of proof because: (1) Grigoryan’s 2 0 testimony stating that police officers used “foul language” 2 1 and said “bad things” about his parents did not establish 2 2 his parents’ political opinion or that he had been arrested7 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 1 0 to corroborate their claim. The IJ did indicate that he 1 1 believed the parents’ testimony or other documentation 1 2 regarding their political activity was necessary, and he 1 3 afforded the Petitioners an opportunity to explain why they 1 4 failed to submit that evidence. See id. 1 5 Finally, we decline to address the Petitioners’ 1 6 unexhausted argument that Grigoryan was persecuted on 1 7 account of his membership in a particular social group 1 8 comprised of entrepreneurs. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of 1 9 Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007). 2 0 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 1 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 2 2 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition8 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