Opinion ID: 6498778
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Barseghyan’s first arrest

Text: The second inconsistency the IJ and BIA relied upon is whether Barseghyan was arrested at his home or the police station on January 23. In his written declaration, Barseghyan stated that the police arrested him inside of his house on January 23 but that he was “questioned and released.” He explained that he “was told that [he] will be called for additional questioning” and that a week later he was “called back” to the police. On direct examination, Barseghyan 10 BARSEGHYAN V. GARLAND testified that he was called to the police station on January 23. This topic did not come up in cross-examination, but the IJ asked Barseghyan about it near the end of the hearing and gave him the opportunity to explain why his declaration stated that he was arrested inside his house, but his testimony described that he was called to the police station on January 23. Barseghyan initially confirmed that the police called him by phone on January 23, but then clarified that the “second time was the phone call” and he “forgot that they came to my home January 23rd and then it was a phone call, later.” Barseghyan contends that his declaration and testimony are consistent and that he was describing two different encounters with the police, while the IJ thought he was describing a single encounter. He explains that in the first encounter, on January 23, he was arrested at his home and went to the police station for questioning, after which he was released. In the second encounter, he was called by the police and went to the station. This explanation is supported by his written declaration, in which he wrote that he was arrested at home but “questioned and released,” and a week later was called “back” to the police station. In common usage of the English language, one cannot be “released” from their own home, nor could a person be “called back” to the station if the person had been only arrested and questioned at home. But Barseghyan nevertheless testified on direct examination that he was “called to the police” on January 23, conflicting with his explanation of being arrested at home and then questioned at the station. When pressed by the IJ to explain the discrepancy at the hearing, Barseghyan stated that he “simply forgot that they came to my home January 23rd.” While “this may very well have been an honest answer,” it is “hardly an explanation for the inconsistency.” Kumar, 18 F.4th at 1054. Under the BARSEGHYAN V. GARLAND 11 deferential review we give to the BIA’s factual findings, we conclude that this inconsistency is supported by the record.