Kazariants v. Holder , 372 F. App'x 700 ( 2010 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ARMEN ISAKHANOVICH No. 07-72085
KAZARIANTS; et al.,
Agency Nos. A079-255-536
Petitioners, A079-255-537
A079-255-538
v. A079-255-539
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 12, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Armen Isakhanovich Kazariants (“Armen”), a native and citizen of
Azerbaijan, his wife, Lusine Minasian (“Lusine”), also a native and citizen of
Azerbaijan, and their two children Vahe Kazariants and Helen Kazariants, natives
*
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).
of Russia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
dismissal of their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering them
removed from the United States. We have jurisdiction over this petition pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we affirm.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
I
We review the BIA’s findings of fact for substantial evidence.1 Zhao v.
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 2008). We will uphold the BIA’s decision
if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039–40 (9th Cir.
2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for an abuse of
discretion. Gonzalez v. INS, 82 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 1996).
II
The BIA’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.
In an effort to establish their identity, Armen and Lusine submitted two counterfeit
birth certificates. These fraudulent documents were offered by Armen and Lusine
1
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) defines the substantial evidence standard by
stating that “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
2
“to establish [a] critical element[] of the asylum claim” and provide substantial
evidence for the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951,
956 (9th Cir. 1999).
II
The IJ properly exercised his discretion by denying the Kazariants family’s
motion for a continuance. The Kazariants family had counsel and had already been
granted two previous continuances. Moreover, the Kazariants knew about the
government’s claim that the birth certificates were counterfeits on December 4,
2003, a date almost two years before the hearing before the IJ. The IJ acted well
within his sound discretion by denying the motion. Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d
1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).
DENIED.
3