Tzezel Baghoyan v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TZEZEL BAGHOYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1111
Agency No. A062-904-438
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Tzezel Baghoyan (“Baghoyan”) petitions for review of the denial by the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) of his appeal from the decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that found him ineligible for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We dismiss in
* 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).
FILED
FEB 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Case: 21-1111, 02/17/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
part and deny in part his petition.
1. The IJ found Baghoyan’s application for asylum statutorily time barred.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2021);1 Alquijay v. Garland,
40 F.4th 1099, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2022). The IJ further determined that the
particularly serious crime bar applied to Baghoyan’s claim for withholding of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii); Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757,
765 (9th Cir. 2022). Baghoyan did not meaningfully appeal either of those bars to
the Board. We therefore lack jurisdiction over them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1);
Vasquez-Borjas v. Garland, 36 F.4th 891, 900 (9th Cir. 2022).
2. Notwithstanding such statutory bars to asylum and withholding of
removal, a noncitizen may merit deferral of removal under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.17(a); Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 745 n.1 (9th Cir. 2022).
The IJ denied Baghoyan deferral of removal, and the Board affirmed. Baghoyan
did not meaningfully contest this decision in his petition before this Court, thus
waiving the claim. See Collins v. City of San Diego, 841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir.
1998). Regardless, substantial evidence supported the IJ’s (and the Board’s)
finding that, among other deficiencies in his claim, Baghoyan would not face
extreme harm amounting to torture upon return to Armenia. See 8 C.F.R.
1 All other citations to regulations are to the same year.
Case: 21-1111, 02/17/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
§ 1208.18(a)(2). We therefore deny Baghoyan’s petition as to CAT deferral. 2 See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Dai v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1142, 1144–45 (9th Cir. 2021)
(per curiam).
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; PETITION DENIED IN PART.
2 We also dismiss as moot Baghoyan’s motion to stay removal.
Case: 21-1111, 02/17/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --