N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KAR INE PETR OSYAN; HAR UTYUN KHAC HATR

YAN; SER GEY KHAC HATR

YAN, Pe titione rs, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-72715 Age n c y Nos. A098-824-758

A098-824-759 A098-824-760 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 16, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, R

AW L INSON, an d

HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione rs Ka

rine Pe trosy an (Pe trosy an), Ha ruty un Kha c h a try an, a

nd Se rge y Kha c hatry an , Arm e nia

n c itiz e ns, c ha lle nge the B o ard of Im m igration 

# FIL ED JAN 09 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Appe a ls’ (B IA) de nia l of Pe trosy an’ s m otion to re ope n. 1 Pe trosy an c onte n ds tha t re ope n ing of he r im

m igration proc e e dings is wa rra nte d due to ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l a

nd c ha nge d c ountry

c o nditions. W e re v ie w the B IA’ s de c ision for a

buse of disc re tion. Marav illa Marav i lla v . Ashc roft , 381 F.3d 855, 857 (9th C i r. 2004). The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Pe trosy an’ s untim e ly m otion to re ope n be c a

use Pe trosy an fa ile d to e xe rc i se due dilige nc e in pursuing her ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m . De spite dissa tisfa c tion with her a ttorne y ’ s pe rform a nc e , Pe t rosy an wa ite d two y e ars a fte r the B IA’ s de nia l of he r a ppe a l to file he r m otion to re ope n a nd “ took no a ffirm a tive ste ps to inve stiga te ” whe the r he r c ounse l re nde re d ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e . Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 680 (9th C ir. 2011). In a ddition, Pe trosy an fa ile d to e sta b lish tha t he r “ c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s so ina de quat e tha

t it m ay have a ffe c te d

the outc om e of the proc e e dings.” Martine z -He rnande

z v . Holde r , 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th C ir. 2015) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The im m igration judge ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation wa s ba se d on Pe trosy an’ s inc onsiste nt te stim ony , he r de m e anor, a nd

1 This m e m orandum

disposition re fe rs to pe t itione rs c o lle c tive ly a s Pe trosy an be c a

use he r husba

nd’ s a nd son’ s pe titions a

re de riva tive . 2he r nonre sponsiveanswe rs. Se e id. (re quiring c la im to be pla usible be fore finding c ounse l’ s pe rform an c e ina de quate ). Fina lly , the B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Pe strosy an’ s m otion to re ope n pre m ise d

on c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions. The

B IA prope rly c onc lude d that c ountry c ondition re

p orts a nd othe r e vide nc e c o nc e rning politic a l pe rse c ution in Arm e nia

we re im m a te ria l to Pe t

rosy an’ s a sy lum

c la im be c a use she fa ile d to c re d ibly e sta blish tha t she wa s pe rse c ute d a s a

politic a l a c tivist. Toufighi v
. Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th C ir. 2008), a s ame nde d (holding tha

t ne w e vide nc e of pe rse c ution wa s im m a te ria l due to fa ilure to e sta blish “ a prima fac ie c a se for e ligibility” ). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3