Boyakyan v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-125
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2023

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

KAREN BOYAKYAN, No. 22-125 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-243-660 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 16, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: SILER***, NGUYEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Karen Boyakyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of a

decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a

decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

*** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s

legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. See

Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020). Under the latter standard, the

“administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We

deny the petition.

1. Petitioner entered the United States in September 2000, and he did not

file his asylum application until July 18, 2012. Petitioner’s asylum application was

thus untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Substantial evidence supports the

BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to establish “extraordinary or changed

circumstances” that excused his untimely application. Petitioner provided only

vague testimony about why his asylum application was delayed and supplied no

corroborating evidence. We agree with the BIA that Petitioner failed to present

facts demonstrating “extraordinary or changed circumstances” that would excuse

Petitioner’s filing delay. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); Gasparyan v. Holder, 707

F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013).

2. Petitioner failed to challenge the BIA’s determination that he did not

establish a “nexus” between his claimed persecution and a statutorily protected

ground. A “nexus,” however, is needed to establish both an asylum claim, 8

U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A), and a withholding of removal claim, 8 U.S.C. §

2 1231(b)(3). See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (“a risk

of persecution on account of his membership in the specified particular social

group” is known as the nexus requirement). Petitioner thus waives this “nexus”

argument, and both his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See

Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (refusing to address an

argument that the petitioner did not “specifically and distinctly” argue in his

opening brief).

3. Petitioner also failed to challenge the BIA’s determination that he was

not eligible for protection under CAT. Petitioner states in his brief that he has met

his burden to show he would be tortured but does not connect this assertion to

either the facts or the law. Petitioner thus waives any argument about his CAT

claim. See Hernandez, 47 F.4th at 916. His CAT claim thus fails.

DENIED.