Petrosyan v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Hamlet Petrosyan, No. 21-386
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-390-792
v.
MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: LEE, BRESS, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Hamlet Petrosyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, seeks review of an
order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Petrosyan contends that the BIA abused its discretion by
concluding that country conditions in Armenia have not materially changed since
his initial removal proceedings and that, in any event, he cannot establish a prima
*
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).
facie case for asylum or withholding of removal based on having HIV or the
perceived association with the “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex
(LGBTI)” community. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny
the petition for review.
In 2018, Petrosyan filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge
denied his application, making an adverse credibility determination against him
and finding that in any event he did not establish persecution or likelihood of
torture. The BIA affirmed, and this court then denied his petition for review in
2020, agreeing with the BIA’s adverse credibility conclusion. In 2021, he filed a
motion to reopen removal proceedings with the BIA, which denied it as untimely.
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petrosyan’s motion to
reopen. Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of
review). Even if a motion to reopen has not been filed within the required 90
days of the final order of removal (as in this case), a petitioner can still rely on a
changed conditions exception: he or she must show that “circumstances have
changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate
claim for asylum [at the time of the initial hearing] now has a well-founded fear
of future persecution.” Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004).
Petrosyan, however, cannot rely on this exception because he has not
shown materially changed conditions or circumstances in Armenia since 2018
when he had his initial hearing. Petrosyan argues that the mistreatment of HIV-
2 21-386
positive and LGBTI individuals has increased in Armenia since 2018. 1 He
supports his argument with the 2019 Human Rights Report and Dr. Aram
Terzyan’s expert opinion, both of which catalogue instances of deplorable
violence against LGBTI individuals, discrimination against HIV-positive
individuals, anti-LGBTI protests, and government officials expressing anti-
LGBTI sentiment. But his evidence fails to establish that there has been a
qualitative change in mistreatment since his 2018 hearing—violence and
discrimination toward HIV-positive and LGBTI individuals, unfortunately, has
been a persistent problem in Armenia. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137
(9th Cir. 2016).
True, Dr. Terzyan’s report expresses additional concerns that the Armenian
government’s recent decision to incorporate its Center for the Prevention of AIDS
into another clinic will further reduce medical treatment for HIV-positive
individuals. It further suggests that the escalation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
war has increased animus against the LGBTI community. The BIA, however,
concluded that these events have a speculative connection to increased
mistreatment of HIV-positive and LGBTI individuals, and this conclusion was
not arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. See Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638,
641–42 (9th Cir. 2011). It was thus rational for the BIA to conclude that
Petrosyan’s evidence showed a continuation in country conditions as opposed to
1
Petrosyan is married to his wife but he states that he is perceived as a member
of the LGBTI community because of his HIV status.
3 21-386
a material increase in mistreatment. And while Petrosyan’s evidence showed a
qualitative increase in medical discrimination against HIV-positive women, the
BIA did not abuse its discretion by finding that this does not affect Petrosyan
because he is a man.
2. Even if Petrosyan could establish materially changed conditions in
Armenia, he fails to establish a prima facie case for asylum or withholding, so the
BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to reopen. Petrosyan
contends that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution because HIV-
positive and LGBTI individuals in Armenia face a pattern or practice of
persecution. Although public and private individuals in Armenia commit acts of
violence and discrimination against HIV-positive and LGBTI individuals, the
BIA rationally concluded that these acts do not rise to a pattern or practice of
persecution. See Bromfield v. Mukasey 543 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th Cir. 2008)
(finding a pattern and practice where both public and private officials perpetrated
violence against LGBTI individuals and laws criminalized homosexuality);
Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2004). Petrosyan thus
fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that he has a well-founded fear of future
persecution, which is necessary to have a prima facie case for asylum and
withholding. See Salim, 831 F.3d at 1139.
PETITION DENIED.
4 21-386