Buniatyan v. Blanche et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Tigran Buniatyan,
Petitioner,
v.
Todd Blanche, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-02842-PHX-KML (MTM)
ORDER
Petitioner Tigran Buniatyan filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting the
court order respondents “to refer, schedule, and provide Petitioner with a constitutionally
compliant credible fear screening including the presence of counsel and, if necessary, the
review of any subsequent negative determination before an Immigration Judge.” (Doc. 1
at 9.) Petitioner also filed an emergency motion to stay his removal pending adjudication
of his petition for writ of mandamus. (Doc. 2.) The court ordered respondents to respond
to the emergency motion. (Doc. 4.) The response provides evidence petitioner agreed to
proceed with the credible fear interview without his counsel. (Doc. 6-2 at 4.) The response
also provided evidence the Immigration Judge conducted a de novo determination of the
credible fear screening. (Doc. 6-4 at 2.) Petitioner was given until April 28, 2026, to file a
reply but chose not to do so.
On June 12, 2026, and again on June 22, 2026, petitioner filed practically-identical
emergency motions to stay removal. (Docs. 8, 9.) Those motions assert without any
supporting evidence that the Immigration Judge did not conduct a de novo review of the
Case 2:26-cv-02842-KML--MTM Document 10 Filed 06/24/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
negative credible fear finding, that respondents failed “to permit counsel to be present” at
the credible fear interview, and somehow violated the regulation that allows for
rescheduling a credible fear interview when “the alien is unable to participate effectively
in the interview because of illness, fatigue, or other impediments.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(d).
The only record evidence contradicts petitioner’s central contentions regarding his
entitlement to relief. That is, petitioner agreed to proceed without counsel and the
Immigration Judge conducted the requisite type of review. In these circumstances,
petitioner has not shown either a strong likelihood of success on the merits or a substantial
case on the merits. Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). The motions
to stay removal are denied.
IT IS ORDERED the Motions to Stay Removal (Docs. 2, 8, 9) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED respondents shall respond to the petition within
twenty days of this order. Petitioner shall file a reply within ten days of the response.
Dated this 23rd day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-02842-KML--MTM Document 10 Filed 06/24/26 Page 2 of 2