Arakelyan v. Atty Gen USA , 258 F. App'x 459 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    12-17-2007
    Arakelyan v. Atty Gen USA
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 06-1791
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "Arakelyan v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 57.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/57
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1791
    TIGRAN ARAKELYAN,
    Petitioner
    v.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    United States Department of Justice
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    (BIA No. A96-355-886)
    Immigration Judge: Honorable Henry S. Dogin
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    December 14, 2007
    Before: RENDELL, GREENBERG and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
    (Filed: December 17, 2007)
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
    Tigran Arakelyan petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. For the reasons
    below, we will deny Arakelyan’s petition for review.
    Arakelyan is a citizen of Armenia charged with removal under 8 U.S.C. §
    1227(a)(1)(b). The Immigration Judge initially found Arakelyan removable, and the BIA
    affirmed without issuing a separate opinion and denied his motion to reconsider.
    Ninety-two days later, Arakelyan filed a motion to reopen based on changed
    circumstances in Armenia. In support of his motion, he attached a number of affidavits
    from persons in Armenia, the State Department’s 2004 Country Report on Human Rights
    Practices for Armenia, and an identification card and campaign brochure ostensibly
    linking him to a candidate running for election in 1999. The BIA denied Arakelyan’s
    motion, finding that he had failed to show that the materials used to support his motion
    were unavailable at the time of his initial hearing. The BIA further concluded that
    Arakelyan had failed to prove that the Country Report reflected worsened country
    conditions that directly applied to his situation. This appeal followed.
    A motion to reopen is typically barred after ninety days. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
    This limit does not apply however if the motion seeks relief “based on changed
    circumstances arising in the country [of removal], if such evidence is material and was
    not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8
    C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). In addition to submitting previously unavailable evidence and
    showing worsened country conditions, the motion to reopen “must establish prima facie
    eligibility for [the requested relief].” Guo v. Ashcroft, 
    386 F.3d 556
    , 563 (3d Cir. 2004).
    We will not disturb the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen unless it is “‘arbitrary,
    irrational, or contrary to law.’” Borges v. Gonzales, 
    402 F.3d 398
    , 404 (3d Cir. 2005)
    2
    (citations omitted).
    The BIA did not act arbitrarily in ruling that Arakelyan’s supporting information
    was previously available. All of the items in support of petitioner’s motion to reopen,
    excluding the updated Country Report, could have been presented during the initial
    asylum hearing. As to the updated Country Report, Arakelyan failed to present sufficient
    evidence demonstrating that the country conditions had worsened since his original
    hearing or that the changed conditions in Armenia would affect him. The decision of the
    BIA is clearly supported by the record and cannot be construed as arbitrary, irrational, or
    contrary to law.
    For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1791

Citation Numbers: 258 F. App'x 459

Filed Date: 12/17/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023