Court Opinion

ID: 9899398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 18:01:04.914427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:23.915685
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 16 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AGHUNIK YEGHIAZARYAN; ARMINE                    No. 22-501
LALAYAN; SAMSON                                 Agency Nos.
LALAYAN; SERZH                                  A208-601-286
LALAYAN; ZHIRAYR LALAYAN,                       A208-601-289
                                                A208-601-288
             Petitioners,
                                                A208-601-287
                                                A208-601-349
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted October 16, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District
Judge.***

      *
             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 Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
      Petitioners Zhirayr Lalayan (“Lalayan”), his wife Aghunik Yeghiazaryan,

and their three minor children, Serzh Lalayan, Samson Lalayan, and Armine

Lalayan petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial

of the motion to reopen Lalayan’s asylum claim on the basis of new evidence. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s denial of a

motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Fonseca-Fonseca v. Garland, 76 F.4th

1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2023). We deny the petition.1

      A noncitizen may file a motion to reopen proceedings with the BIA to

present previously unavailable material evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). The

BIA may exercise its discretion to grant a motion to reopen if persuaded that “the

new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case.” Fonseca-

Fonseca, 76 F.4th at 1181 (citing Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473

(B.I.A. 1992)). The noncitizen must show that “it is at least more probable than

not that the new evidence would change the outcome of the claim.” Id. at 1183.

Where an immigration judge (“IJ”) has denied an underlying asylum claim due to

an adverse credibility determination, the noncitizen “must either overcome the

prior determination or show that the new claim is independent of the evidence that

was found to be not credible.” Singh v. Garland, 46 F.4th 1117, 1122 (9th Cir.

1
  Because we deny the petition, Lalayan’s motion for a stay of removal pending
review is denied as moot.

                                       2                                     22-501
2022) (quoting Matter of F-S-N-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 (B.I.A. 2020)).

      The IJ denied Lalayan’s application because of an adverse credibility

determination. The IJ reached this conclusion after finding implausibilities

surrounding three of Lalayan’s claims: that he belatedly discovered the

embezzlement at his place of work, chose not to notify his employer, and decided

to come to the United States only after arriving in Mexico. We upheld the IJ’s

decision, concluding that the adverse credibility determination was supported by

substantial evidence. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 837–41 (9th Cir. 2021).

      In his motion to reopen, Lalayan submitted new evidence that generally

corroborated his asylum claim. The new evidence, however, did not address the

implausibilities identified by the IJ or clearly offer the rehabilitation necessary to

overcome the IJ’s adverse credibility determination in the underlying proceeding.

Given the general nature and limited rehabilitative value of Lalayan’s new

evidence, the agency could reasonably conclude that the new evidence would not

likely change the result in the case. See Fonseca-Fonseca, 76 F.4th at 1181. On

this record, the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings was not “arbitrary,

irrational, or contrary to law.” Singh, 46 F.4th at 1121 (quoting Agonafer v.

Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017)). Consequently, the BIA did not

abuse its discretion in denying Lalayan’s motion to reopen.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                                     22-501