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.
Chichian v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services
Citation: 182 F. App'x 15Docket: No. 04-6089-AG(L)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; May 22, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Vardan Chichian and his wife, Liana Chichian, are petitioning for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that upheld Immigration Judge Gabriel C. Videla’s denial of their asylum and withholding of deportation applications. Vardan submitted four asylum applications between 1992 and 1997, while Liana submitted one in 1992 before applying as a derivative of Vardan's claims. Their petitions are consolidated due to the derivative nature of Liana’s application. The BIA’s summary affirmation led the court to review the Immigration Judge's decision as the final agency determination, applying the substantial evidence standard to the IJ’s factual findings and credibility assessments. The IJ determined Vardan Chichian to be not credible, citing significant inconsistencies across his asylum applications, interviews, and testimonies. Key inconsistencies include the omission of the 1988 earthquake in later applications despite initially claiming it as a basis for asylum, and contradictory statements regarding their situation in Armenia. In his 1993 application, Vardan cited his daughter’s medical needs and harassment due to political opposition, but these points were absent in his 1997 application. Additionally, Vardan later introduced claims of persecution based on his Christian faith, which had not been mentioned in prior applications or interviews. The IJ found these inconsistencies central to the asylum claim, supporting the conclusion that Vardan lacked credibility. Chichian's explanations for inconsistencies in his case were deemed unreasonable and 'inexcusable' by the Immigration Judge (IJ), who noted that he did not adequately verify the contents of his I-589 applications. This failure to demonstrate a basic interest in his case contributed to a credibility determination against him. As a result, Chichian could not establish a well-founded fear of persecution, which was essential for his claim. The adverse credibility finding precluded his success in seeking withholding of deportation. Consequently, the consolidated petitions for review were denied, any prior stay of removal was vacated, and any pending motions for a stay were deemed moot. Requests for oral argument were also denied under relevant procedural rules.