Manoukian v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARAM MANOUKIAN; ANNA Nos. 05-77203, 06-71825
MANOUKIAN,
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A070-663-567
A070-663-566
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 3, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, CLIFTON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Aram and Anna Manoukian are Armenian nationals. They entered the
United States on tourist visas, overstayed, and were put into deportation
proceedings. They claim asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Anna Manoukian’s claim is as a dependent
of her husband.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) found that Aram Manoukian was statutorily ineligible for a grant of
asylum based upon his political opinion because he had failed to give specific
testimony to show that he held a position of importance in the People’s Party of
Armenia (“PPA”) and because he had failed to show that he had a well-founded
fear of persecution should he be returned to Armenia. Because the BIA adopted
the IJ’s decision with additional comments, we review both decisions. Kataria v.
INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2000) (superseded on other grounds).
We review the IJ’s and BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). The government notes that there was
no adverse credibility finding as to Aram Manoukian. In the absence of an adverse
credibility finding, we take Manoukian’s testimony as true. Kataria, 232 F.3d at
1114. But even if true, Manoukian’s testimony lacked the specificity needed to
support his claim. See Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 212 (9th Cir. 1991).
Manoukian did not provide any testimony to show that there were specific threats
that would give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution should he return to
Armenia. The only threats that he testified to with any specificity were allegedly
2
made to his family in Armenia while he was in the United States. But those threats
too were vague, and the IJ was entitled to give less weight to this hearsay evidence.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006). The IJ and the BIA were
supported by substantial evidence in their findings that Manoukian did not show
his eligibility for asylum.
The IJ and BIA were also supported by substantial evidence in their findings
that Manoukian had failed to bring forward specific evidence to meet his burdens
for withholding of removal, or CAT protection. See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407,
430 (1984) (withholding of removal requires “clear probability of persecution”);
Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 2004) (CAT relief requires a
showing of a chance greater than fifty percent than an applicant for relief will be
tortured if removed).
The Manoukians’ claim that they were denied due process in their hearing
before the IJ has no merit. The conduct of an IJ hearing violates due process only
where the proceeding is “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from
reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.
2000). The Manoukians’ case was fully presented before the IJ.
Lastly, the Manoukians’ claim that the BIA erred in denying their motion to
reopen also lacks merit. The BIA acted within its discretion in deciding that the
3
evidence offered by the Manoukians in the motion to reopen was discoverable and
available at the original hearing. Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 913 (9th Cir.
2003).
The petitions for review are DENIED.
4