BL D- 1 4 2 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 4503

___________ VAHAN M AR T I RO S YAN,

Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls 

### Age nc y No. A095 660 422 Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : 

### Margaret R. Reic henb erg

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

M ar ch 11, 2010 B efore: M cK E E , C hief J ud ge, R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: M ay20, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM V ahan M art i r os y an has fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of a de ci s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , w hi ch deni ed hi s m ot i on t o r eopen hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs . T he governm enthas fi l ed a mot i on fors um m arydeni al of the pet i t i on for2

r e v i e w. We wi l l g r a n tth e mo t i o n a n d d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. M art i r os y an i s a ci t i zen of A rm eni a. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2004 as an unacc om pani ed mi nor . H e w as char ged w i th r emoval as an al i en l i kel yt o become a publ i c cha r ge and a s an i m m i gr antw hos e vi s a w as i s s ued w i thoutcompl i ance w i th the pr ovi s i ons of s ect i on 203 of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct . M art i r os y an appl i ed f o r a sy lu m a n d re late d re lief , b u t o n F e b ru a ry2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , an Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e f o u n d h im t o b e r e mo v a b l e , d e n i e d r e l i e f , a n d o r d e r e d h i s r e mo v a l f r o m th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . On O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 0 8 , the B IA d ism iss e d M a rtiro sy a n ’s a p p e a l. O n M a rc h 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 , M a rt ir o s y a n f ile d a m o tio n to re o p e n w ith th e B IA . M a r t i r o s y a n c o n t e n d e d th a tth e BI A f a i l e d t o g i v e p r o p e rwe i g h tt o h i s y o u th a tth e t i me o f th e h e a rin g (a g e se v e n tee n ) w h e n c o n d u c tin g its re v iew o f th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty f in d in g . A m o tio n to re o p e n m u s t n o rm a lly b e f ile d w ith in n in e ty d a y s o f a f in a l o rd e r. 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) . T he B I A not ed thatM art i r os y an di d notal l ege c hanged ci r cumst ance s i n A rm eni a and thus di d nots at i s fythe s ect i on 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) exce pt i on to the ti m e li m it . T h e B IA also n o ted th at th e se cti o n 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(3)(ii i) ex ce p ti o n fo r a j oi ntm ot i on w as notm etbecaus e the governm entoppos ed the mot i on. M or eover , the B I A found no exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance ei thert o r eopen the mat t eror , cons trui ng the m ot i on as a mot i on t o r econs i der , t o r econs i derthe mat t ers ua s pont e. A ccor di ngl y , the B IA d e n ied a s u n tim e lyM a rtiro sy a n ’s m o tio n to re o p e n a n d th e c o n stru e d m o tio n to rec o n side r.3

T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. M art i r os y an has fi l ed a mot i on fora s t ayof re m o v a l. T h e g o v e rn m e n t h a s f iled a m o tio n f

o r su m m a rya c tio n a n d re sp o n se in o p p o sit ion to the staym o ti o n . M arti rosy an h as f il ed a re sp o n se to the g o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on. W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on. G uo v. A sh c ro f t, 38 6 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e B IA ’s d e c isio n w ill b e u p h e ld u n les s it w as “ arb itrary , irrati o n al or c o n tr aryto law . ” T ipu v . IN S , 2 0 F . 3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). M art i r os y an does notcont es tthe B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs thathi s m ot i on di d notal l ege a c h a n g e in c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s o r th a t h is m o tio n w a s n o t “jo in tlyf iled ” to sh o w th a t a r egul at oryexce pt i on t o the t i m e l i m i t at i ons w as appl i cabl e. I ns t ead, M art i r os y an ar gues thatthe B I A , i n i t s O ct ober3, 2008 deci s i on, di d notm eani ngful l yaddr es s hi s y outh at the t i m e of the hea r i ng i n as s es s i ng hi s cr edi bi l i ty , and thatthi s fai l ur e w arr ant ed rec o n side rati o n . W e d isag ree . T h e O ctob er 3 , 2 0 0 8 d ec isi o n d id ad d ress M arti rosy an ’s arg u m en ts co n test ing the a d v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing o n the b asis o f h is ag e. T h e B IA s peci fi cal l ydet erm i ned thathi s y outh di d notpr ovi de a r eas onabl e expl anat i on forthe inco n sist en cyb etw ee n h is asy lum ap p li ca ti o n an d h is t esti m o n y . In p arti cu lar, the B IA ref erred to the ab sen ce o f testi m o n yreg ard ing an incid en t des cribe d in M arti rosy an ’s as y l um appl i cat i on i nvol vi ng hi s havi ng been de t ai ned and be at en bypol i ce a nd havi ng w i tnes s ed hi s m otherbei ng s truck. M art i r os y an s ugges t s thatthe B I A s houl d have t akenT he r ecor d r efl ect s thatM art i r os y an’ s dat e of bi r th w as D ece m ber25, 1989. 1 4 i nt o acc ountthatm anyy ear s el aps ed betw een the t i m e of the eve nt s i n ques t i on and the d a te o f th e h e a rin g , an d th a t ch ild re n m a yb e u n a b le to p re se n t tes tim o n yc o n c e rn in g th e ir cl ai m s due t o l i m i t ed know l edge of thei rhom e countrycondi t i ons , orbeca us e of c ul tur al re a so n s, m a tu ritylev e l, oro th e r re a so n s. H o w e v e r, b e c a u se th o se f a c to rs d o n o t ex p lain w hyM art i r os y an omi tt ed fr om hi s t es t i m onyan eve ntupon w hi ch hi s as y l um appl i cat i on w a s b a se d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to reo p en o r reco n side r. W e add thatM art i r os y an ar gues thatthe age ncy“fa i l ed t o r ecogni ze al egal di s abi l i tyas an exc ept i on t o the t i m e l i m i t at i on pl ace d on a mot i on t o r eopen or rec o n side r, ” n am ely , the leg al disab il ityo f b eing an u n ac co m p an ied m ino r. P eti ti o n er’s O p p o sitio n T o R e sp o n d e n t’s M o tio n F o r S u m m a ryD e n ial a t 3 . W e n o te th a t h is a rg u m e n t re lies o n a n a n a lo g yb e tw e e n th e f ili n g o f a n a sy lu m a p p lica tio n a n d a m o tio n to r eopen orr econs i der , as he ci t es 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 4( a) ( 5) ( i i ) , a pr ovi s i on conce rni ng extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s forfai l i ng t o m eetthe dea dl i ne forfi l i ng an as y l um appl i cat i on. I n thi s cas e, w her e M art i r os y an di d notpr es entthi s ar gum entt o the age ncy as a bas i s foran exc ept i on t o the appl i cabl e dea dl i nes , w e dec l i ne t o ent ert ai n the ar gum ent . I n anyevent , w e not e thatthe appl i cat i on of anys uch exc ept i on w oul d notbe w arr ant ed her e, w her e M art i r os y an does notcl ai m thathe w as a mi nororundera l egal di s abi l i tyatthe t i m e of the B I A ’ s O ct ober3, 2008 deci s i on. 15

B ecaus e thi s pet i t i on forr evi ew does notr ai s e a s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e gr antthe governm ent ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryact i on and w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew . See T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. W e al s o denyM art i r os y an’ s m ot i on fora s t ayof re m o v a l.