Abrahamyan v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 9, 2024
• Docket: 22-1532
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 9 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIRANUSH ABRAHAMYAN; SARGIS No. 22-1532 KARAPETYAN, Agency Nos. A095-582-423 Petitioners, A095-394-376 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 7, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Siranush Abrahamyan and her husband, Sargis Karapetyan, natives and

citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) order dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order finding

* 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). them removable and denying Abrahamyan’s application for adjustment of status to

that of lawful permanent resident.1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

facts and recite them only as necessary. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the

IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d

1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a),

but our review of the agency’s discretionary adjustment-of-status determination is

limited to “constitutional claims” and “questions of law,” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D). To invoke the court’s jurisdiction, a constitutional or legal

claim must be “colorable,” i.e., “the claim must have some possible validity.”

Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martinez-

Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005)).

We dismiss the petition because Petitioners have not advanced a colorable

argument that the agency committed a legal or constitutional error by denying

Abrahamyan’s application for adjustment of status on the ground that Abrahamyan

failed to show that she was statutorily eligible for discretionary relief. Petitioners

argue that the agency violated Abrahamyan’s due process rights by relying on

allegedly unauthenticated exhibits. To succeed on a due process challenge,

1 The BIA noted that Petitioners did not contest the IJ’s “finding that [Karapetyan’s] eligibility for adjustment of status is contingent upon a favorable decision on his wife’s adjustment of status application.” Petitioners do not challenge the IJ’s finding here.

2 22-1532 Petitioners “must show error and substantial prejudice.” Grigoryan v. Barr, 959

F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th

Cir. 2000)). Petitioners fail to identify any error in the BIA’s conclusion that

Petitioners were not prejudiced by the IJ’s admission of the challenged exhibits.

The record supports the BIA’s finding that Abrahamyan failed to demonstrate that

she had not fraudulently obtained a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality

Act (INA). Abrahamyan testified only that she could not recall whether she signed

any asylum documents under a fictitious name or whether she used the

employment authorization card issued to her under a fictitious name. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (explaining that a noncitizen who fraudulently procures or seeks

to procure a “benefit provided under [the INA] is inadmissible”).

Petitioners also provide no authority for their argument that obtaining and

using an employment authorization card, issued pursuant to a regulation that

authorizes “employment incident to [asylee] status,” is not a benefit provided by

the INA. 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a), (a)(5). Regardless, Petitioners do not dispute that

they fraudulently obtained asylum and benefited from its accompanying legal

status. See Yan Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing

asylum relief as a benefit under the INA). Because Petitioners fail to present a

colorable argument that the agency made a constitutional or legal error, we lack

jurisdiction to review their petition.

3 22-1532 The motion for a stay of removal is denied. The temporary stay of removal

remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION DISMISSED.

4 22-1532