Court Opinion

ID: 9392489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 00:00:37.028613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.134511
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60536        Document: 00516739237             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60536
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 4, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Harout Gevorgyan,                                                                  Clerk

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A078 668 605
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Harout Gevorgyan, a native and citizen of Azerbaijan, petitions for
   review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying
   his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions.
         “This [c]ourt reviews the denial of a motion to reopen under a highly
   deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60536     Document: 00516739237           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                    No. 22-60536

   F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). The BIA “abuses its discretion when it issues a decision that is
   capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on
   legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on
   unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.” Id.
          The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and
   its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685
   F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The substantial evidence test “requires only
   that the BIA’s decision be supported by record evidence and be substantially
   reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This
   court will not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels
   a contrary conclusion. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
          Gevorgyan argues that he has shown materially changed conditions in
   Azerbaijan pertaining to the treatment of Christian Armenians and that the
   BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen. He points to country conditions
   evidence showing that Azerbaijan and Armenia are actively engaged in war
   and that Armenians are being subjected to discrimination, ethnic cleansing,
   and torture. He claims that these “key facts” were not present at the time of
   his 2018 removal hearing.
          A comparison of the country conditions evidence from the time of
   Gevorgyan’s removal hearing in 2018 and his 2021 motion to reopen—the
   relevant time period—reflects a continuation of the violence against ethnic
   Armenians in Azerbaijan. See Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 508 (5th Cir.
   2018). Neither a continuing trend nor an incremental change is sufficient to
   show changed country conditions. Id. at 508–09.
          Gevorgyan also faults the BIA for focusing on the persistence of “anti-
   Armenian prejudice” in Azerbaijan rather than on the escalation in violence
   since his 2018 removal hearing, in finding that he had failed to show changed

                                             2
Case: 22-60536        Document: 00516739237             Page: 3      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                        No. 22-60536

   country conditions. A review of the BIA’s decision, however, reveals that
   the BIA considered evidence of both past and present violence as well as
   discrimination against ethnic Armenians and did not focus solely on anti-
   Armenian sentiment.
           Because the country evidence reflects a continuation of the volatile
   conditions faced by ethnic Armenians in Azerbaijan, which have existed for
   decades, the BIA reasonably found that Gevorgyan had failed to show
   materially changed country conditions that would warrant reopening. 1
   See Deep v. Barr, 967 F.3d 498, 502 (5th Cir. 2020) (affirming BIA’s denial
   of a motion to reopen where evidence showed a “persistent problem” with
   violence against the petitioner’s caste in India rather than a materially
   changed condition). As such, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
   Gevorgyan’s motion to reopen the removal proceedings. 2 See Barrios-
   Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021.

           _____________________
           1
             Because the BIA’s finding of no changed country conditions is dispositive, this
   court need not consider Gevorgyan’s other challenges to the BIA’s denial of reopening.
   “As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
   decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S.
   24, 25 (1976).
           2
              To the extent that Gevorgyan relies on events that occurred after the BIA’s
   decision denying reopening to argue that he has shown changed country conditions, this
   court may not consider such events because they were not considered by the BIA in
   reaching its decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“[T[he court of appeals shall decide
   the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based.”);
   see also Ramchandani v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 337, 339 n.1 (5th Cir. 2005) (declining to
   consider new evidence that “was not produced to the IJ or the BIA and [was] not in the
   record).

                                                  3