GABRIEL MINASYAN V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 15-70862 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL MINASYAN; HASMIK MINASSIAN; HAKOB MINASYAN, No. 15-70862 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A075-648-887 A075-648-888 A075-648-890 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 17, 2022** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Gabriel, Hasmik, and Hakob Minasyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order of February 19, 2015, denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 * 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). U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, which was not supported as required by the governing regulation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen . . . shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”); see also INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 143 (1981) (enforcing a prior regulation that required motions to reopen to be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material). Petitioners offer no support for their contention that the BIA should have excused them from this requirement because they filed their motion to reopen pro se. The record does not support Petitioners’ contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to “consider the most recent relevant country condition profile published by the United States State Department” under Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2002), because they filed their motion pro se. That case is inapplicable for several reasons, including that Petitioners failed to identify materially changed circumstances that any such profile would demonstrate. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-70862
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
