Opinion
No. 14-73616
05-16-2019
VARTAN ABRAMIAN, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A070-645-625 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: NGUYEN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON, District Judge.
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).
The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. --------
Vartan Abramian, a native of Iran, citizen of Ukraine, and ethnic Armenian, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see id., we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.
1. "To prevail on a motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions," a movant must, among other things, "produce evidence that conditions have changed in the country of removal" and "demonstrate that the evidence is material." Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017). While Abramian's evidence shows that the conditions in Ukraine were deteriorating rapidly in the months leading up to his motion to reopen, it does not satisfy the materiality requirement. The evidence merely "details conditions affecting the population at large" and lacks the "individualized relevancy" showing "that [his] predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by [his] fellow citizens." Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998)). Abramian's only evidence regarding the conditions faced by ethnic Armenians in Ukraine states that "there seems to be no backlash yet against the local Armenian community." The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
2. The BIA acknowledged its discretion to reopen the proceedings sua sponte, and we lack jurisdiction to review its decision not to do so. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). Therefore, we dismiss Abramian's petition to the extent it seeks review of the BIA's decision not to reopen the proceedings sua sponte.
3. Abramian is not a prevailing party, so his counsel is not entitled to fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340-41 (9th Cir. 1995).
PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.