Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kesapyan v. Holder
Citation: 319 F. App'x 534Docket: No. 06-71485
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 9, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Ashot Kesapyan, an Armenian citizen, seeks a review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that denied his motion to remand for adjustment of status and dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge's (IJ) ruling against his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims. Jurisdiction is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, with factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence, and the denial of a motion to remand assessed for abuse of discretion. The court found substantial evidence supporting the BIA's adverse credibility determination against Kesapyan, notably due to a fraudulent letter he submitted purporting to prove his membership in a church, which was central to his claim. Additionally, inconsistencies in his testimony about whether armed men targeting him were aware of his Christian faith further undermined his credibility. Kesapyan did not satisfactorily explain these inconsistencies, affecting the viability of his asylum claim. As he failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he also could not meet the higher standard required for withholding of removal. The BIA's affirmation of the IJ's decision invalidated his due process claims regarding CAT, as no errors were found. However, the BIA wrongly denied Kesapyan's motion to remand solely based on government objections. Consequently, the court grants the petition for review regarding the remand motion and remands the case to the BIA for further proceedings. The petition is partially denied and partially granted, with an order to withdraw the previous memorandum disposition and replace it with a new one. The petitioner’s request for panel rehearing is deemed moot, and the disposition is marked as non-precedential except under specific rules.