Opinion ID: 3061794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nikoghosyan’s Motions

Text: Initially, we note that Nikoghosyan does not contest that his second, June 24, 2009 motion to reopen/reconsider was untimely and numerically barred. Nikoghosyan’s June 24, 2009 motion was his second motion to reopen and was filed more than ninety days after the BIA’s July 30, 2008 decision. Thus, the only issue on appeal is whether Nikoghosyan presented material and previously unavailable evidence of changed country conditions to overcome the time and numerical bars. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nikoghosyan’s June 24, 2009 motion to reopen. First, Nikoghosyan did not show that the affidavits from his country expert and his Armenian friends previously were unavailable. Second, the affidavits and articles do not suggest a material change has occurred in Armenia since his removal proceedings ended in July 2008. At most, his evidence shows that for people of Azerbaijani ethnicity conditions in Armenia continue to be bad rather than that they have materially worsened. Furthermore, Nikoghosyan’s evidence did not undermine the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. The IJ determined that Nikoghosyan was not credible due to 7 inconsistencies in his account, his demeanor during his testimony, and his lack of specificity about, or corroborative evidence for, his account of various attacks on his family members in Armenia. In making her credibility determination, the IJ also was concerned with Nikoghosyan’s failure to provide documentary evidence of his accounts of his parents’ deaths and his sister’s disappearance. The BIA concluded that Nikoghosyan’s “new” evidence, which did not address any of the IJ’s concerns, was not sufficient to overcome the IJ’s credibility determination. Under the circumstances, we cannot say the BIA’s conclusion was arbitrary and capricious.2 Nikoghosyan argues that the BIA should have exercised its discretionary authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) to reopen his immigration proceedings sua sponte. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of such discretionary relief. See Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, we dismiss Nikoghosyan’s petition to the extent he challenges the BIA’s refusal to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings. 2 Nikoghosyan argues that his “new” evidence in combination with his original evidence presented to the IJ established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Nikoghosyan’s application for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief on July 30, 2008. Nikoghosyan did not file a petition for review with this Court within thirty days of that BIA decision. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of that decision. See INA § 242(a)(1), (b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1); Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). 8 DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART. 9