Narine Hovhannisyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NARINE HOVHANNISYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70116
Agency No. A095-398-439
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 12, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, District Judge. **
Narine Hovhannisyan (“Hovhannisyan”), a native and citizen of Armenia,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying her motion to reopen based on changed country circumstances.
Hovhannisyan originally sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection
FILED
APR 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

under the Convention Against Torture on account of her religious beliefs, which
was denied due to an adverse credibility determination. She now seeks to reopen
her application, alleging that Armenian authorities intend to persecute her because
of her affiliation with the Unity Alliance political party, as evidenced by a recent
shooting targeting her family in Armenia. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny
the petition for review.1
A motion to reopen requires a showing that the “evidence sought to be
offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or
presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Motions to reopen are
statutorily required to be accompanied by “affidavits or other evidentiary
material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B). Affidavits are
defined as “‘sworn’ declaration[s] of facts.’” United States v. Vargas-Amaya, 389
F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 58 (7th ed. 1999)).
Hovhannisyan’s motion to reopen was supported by her own unsworn
statement, as well as nine unsworn statements from various family members.
Because the statements were unsworn, the BIA declined to credit them as affidavits
and instead granted them limited evidentiary weight. We hold that this was not an
1 We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.
Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2012).
2

-- 2 of 4 --

abuse of discretion. Under the governing regulations, the BIA was not required to
give the unsworn statements any weight at all, because they were not affidavits.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); see also INS v. Jong Ha
Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 143 (1981) (holding that where allegations are “unsupported
by affidavit” they cannot support a motion to reopen because this would constitute
a circumvention of the affidavit requirement in the regulations). Likewise, the BIA
was also entitled to find the statements of limited evidentiary value because they
did not address Hovhannisyan’s prior adverse credibility determination. See
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the BIA
may consider prior adverse credibility findings when evaluating a petitioner’s
motion to reopen). Under these circumstances, the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in concluding that Hovhannisyan’s unsworn statements were of limited evidentiary
weight.
Moreover, the BIA correctly held that the remaining evidentiary materials
could not support the motion to reopen. In addition to the unsworn statements,
Hovhannisyan submitted an Armenian medical record and several country
conditions reports. The BIA held that these materials did not establish changed
circumstances in Armenia which were material to Hovhannisyan’s claims. We
agree. Although the medical record submitted by Hovhannisyan was credible, it
3

-- 3 of 4 --

provided no information as to why Hovhannisyan’s family members were targeted
nor suggested that the shooting of her nephew was intended as retribution for
Hovhannisyan’s political affiliations. Additionally, the country conditions reports
that Hovhannisyan offered were of a general nature and made no mention of the
Unity Alliance or of any government violence directed toward Unity Alliance
members. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that
Hovhannisyan failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Armenia
necessary to support her motion to reopen.
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --