Opinion ID: 203402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: New Evidence and Refusal To Remand

Text: The BIA treated Kechichian's request for a remand as a motion to reopen, which must state new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Zeru v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 59, 71 (1st Cir.2007). A motion to reopen must be denied unless the new evidence establishes a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief. Chikkeur, 514 F.3d at 1383. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125, 127 (1st Cir.2007). This means, in effect, that such a decision will stand unless the complaining party can show that the BIA committed an error of law or exercised its judgment in an arbitrary, capricious, or irrational way. Id. The BIA refused to reopen Kechichian's case because it held that even if her son were potentially subject to persecution in Armenia, that would not entitle her to relief. This circuit has not considered a parent's claim of psychological harm based solely on a child's potential persecution, but the BIA has foreclosed such claims. In re A____K____, 24 I. & N. Dec. 275, 278 (B.I.A.2007) ([A]llowing an applicant to obtain asylum or withholding of removal through persecution to his child would require granting relief outside the statutory ... scheme established by Congress.); see also Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 513 (4th Cir.2007) (refusing to recognize a claim based on a child's potential persecution). Kechichian argues that the Sixth Circuit reached a different conclusion in a case involving a mother who feared her daughter would be subject to genital mutilation if they were forced to return to Ethiopia. Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634, 636 (6th Cir.2004). However, that is the only federal decision to have reached such a result, Niang, 492 F.3d at 512, it is factually distinguishable from Kechichian's case, and in any event it does not bind this circuit. There was no error of law and no abuse of discretion. [4] The petition for review is denied.