Filed: Jan. 26, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 10-1073-ag Kirakosyan v. Holder BIA Elstein, IJ A095 394 330 A095 394 333 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC
Summary: 10-1073-ag Kirakosyan v. Holder BIA Elstein, IJ A095 394 330 A095 394 333 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC D..
More
10-1073-ag
Kirakosyan v. Holder
BIA
Elstein, IJ
A095 394 330
A095 394 333
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 26 th day of January, two thousand eleven,
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 ARAM KIRAKOSYAN and SHOGHIK KIRAKOSYAN,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 10-1073-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Douglas S. Weigle, Bartlett & Weigle
24 Co., LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Anthony C. Payne, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Lance L. Jolley,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioners, Aram Kirakosyan, a native of Syria and
10 citizen of Armenia, and his wife Shoghik Kirakosyan, a
11 native and citizen of Armenia, seek review of a February 23,
12 2010, order of the BIA affirming the May 30, 2008, decision
13 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein denying their
14 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 In re
16 Kirakosyan, No. A095 394 330/333 (B.I.A. Feb. 23, 2010),
17 aff’g No. A095 394 330/333 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 30,
18 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
19 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
20 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both
21 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
22 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
1
For ease of reference, this order refers solely to
the lead petitioner, Aram Kirakosyan.
2
1 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable
2 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,
4 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d
5 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the agency's factual
6 findings under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C.
7 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Shu Wen Sun v. B.I.A.,
510 F.3d
8 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2007). We review de novo questions of law
9 and the application of law to undisputed fact. Salimatou
10
Bah, 529 F.3d at 110.
11 As an initial matter, as the government argues in its
12 brief, Kirakosyan waives any challenge to the IJ’s finding
13 that he failed to establish past persecution on account of
14 his Kurdish ethnicity and religious beliefs as he provides
15 only conclusory and unsupported assertions of past
16 persecution in his brief before us. See Yueqing Zhang v.
17 Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
18 In the absence of past persecution, Kirakosyan can
19 demonstrate eligibility for asylum only if he can show that
20 he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account
21 of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i). Before
22 the IJ, Kirakosyan alleged that he feared returning to
3
1 Armenia because of government-organized groups that
2 intimidated and persecuted non-Armenians. However, as the
3 IJ noted, Kirakosyan offered “no information of any names of
4 such groups, the number of such groups, or the number of
5 people who belonged [to such groups].” IJ Op. at 10.
6 Additionally, the IJ found “no support” in the background
7 information that these groups even existed. Id. at 12.
8 Kirakosyan does not challenge these findings, and instead
9 argues that he fears returning to Armenia because Kurds are
10 often stripped of their cultural privileges and subjected to
11 harassment. However, there is no evidence in the record,
12 and Kirakosyan points to nothing in his brief before this
13 Court, to support these assertions. Given the IJ’s
14 findings, substantial evidence supports her determination
15 that Kirakosyan failed to meet his burden of proof. See 8
16 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jian Xing Huang v. INS,
421 F.3d
17 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (concluding that a fear is not
18 objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in the
19 record and is merely “speculative at best”).
20 Kirakosyan also argues that the IJ failed to consider
21 evidence demonstrating that Muslims are persecuted in
22 Armenia. However, given his inconsistent statements
4
1 regarding whether he is Christian or Muslim, Kirakosyan
2 provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he was,
3 in fact, Muslim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B). The IJ was
4 therefore under no obligation to consider any evidence that
5 Muslims were mistreated in Armenia. Moreover, the country
6 reports in the record do not describe any mistreatment of
7 Muslims in America. See ROA 245-52.
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
5
