Court Opinion

ID: 9889463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 16:01:02.661759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:56.770239
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANNA BAZUNTS,                                   No. 22-1656
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A209-168-793
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted October 2, 2023**
                               Seattle, Washington

Before: WARDLAW and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MATSUMOTO, Senior
District Judge.***

      Anna Bazunts, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
             The Honorable Kiyo A. Matsumoto, United States Senior District
Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the parties are familiar with the

facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary to provide context.

1.    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bazunts is

ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal pursuant to the serious nonpolitical

crime bar. If “there are serious reasons to believe that [an] alien committed a

serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States before the alien arrived in the

United States,” the alien is ineligible for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(b)(3)(A), see id. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii), and withholding of removal under

CAT, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(4), (d)(2). We have interpreted the “serious

reasons” standard as “tantamount to probable cause.” Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d

1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011).

      Bazunts testified—and at no point disputes—that she assisted in committing,

and was convicted of, attempted murder in her home country of Armenia.

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Bazunts is ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See, e.g., Silva-

Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1188–89 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that a foreign

indictment containing specific facts related to the alleged crime, along with

eyewitness testimony, created probable cause sufficient to show the nonpolitical

crime bar was met); Guan v. Barr, 925 F.3d 1022, 1032 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding

                                        2                                    22-1656
that petitioner’s admissions, along with an arrest warrant, created probable cause

sufficient to show bar was met).

2.     Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Bazunts had

not shown a likelihood of torture that “is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with

the consent or acquiescence of” the Armenian government. See B.R. v. Garland,

26 F.4th 827, 844 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.18). As the agency noted,

the Armenian government came to Bazunt’s aid after the incident of alleged torture

by meeting her at the hospital after her neighbor attacked her with a knife,

interviewing her, confiscating the knife, and confronting her neighbor about the

attack. As such, the record does not compel the conclusion that Bazunts is eligible

for relief.

       The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied. PETITION DENIED.

                                         3                                     22-1656