VAHAGN ABRAHAMYAN V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-70141 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VAHAGN ABRAHAMYAN; LILYA ABRAHAMYAN, No. 19-70141 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A209-763-320 A209-763-319 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SCHREIER,*** 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 Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. Vahagn Abrahamyan and his daughter, Lilya Abrahamyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition for review. The IJ based his adverse credibility determination on the implausibility of Vahagn Abrahamyan’s testimony, which is a permissible basis for such a determination, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Abrahamyan did not challenge the IJ’s implausibility findings in his appeal to the BIA, and the BIA did not review that issue on the merits. See Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the BIA may decline to review issue not raised on appeal). Because Abrahamyan failed to exhaust this issue, we lack jurisdiction to review it. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). The IJ also based his adverse credibility determination on Vahagn Abrahamyan’s demeanor, which is not only a permissible basis for such a determination, but is entitled to “special deference.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 2 Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999)).1 Accordingly, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011). Abrahamyan argues, for the first time on appeal, that the IJ erred in failing to afford Abrahamyan an opportunity to corroborate his testimony. This issue was not exhausted before the BIA, and we lack jurisdiction to address it. Barron, 358 F.3d at 678. On appeal, Abrahamyan fails to identify any evidence in the record, other than his own non-credible testimony, that establishes that he is entitled to relief. Therefore, this argument is waived. Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1091 n.3. PETITION DENIED. 1 Abrahamyan also failed to exhaust his argument that the IJ erred in considering Abrahamyan’s demeanor during other witnesses’ testimony. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review it in the first instance. Barron, 358 F.3d at 678. 3
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.
