ANNA AKOPIAN, AKA Anoush Patrikian v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNA AKOPIAN, AKA Anoush Patrikian,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72454
Agency No. A095-716-867
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Anna Akopian, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings as untimely and unexcused by changed country conditions. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
* 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
OCT 2 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010), and we deny the petition.
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Akopian’s motion to
reopen because it was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Akopian
presented insufficient evidence of qualitatively changed country conditions to fall
within the exception, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). At the time of Akopian’s
previous hearing in 2010, there was a strong social stigma against homosexuals in
Georgia, same-sex couples had no right to marry, and there were reports of
violence against the LGBTQ community. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that Akopian’s newly submitted evidence of the acquittal of those who
incited violence at a gay-rights rally, the proposal of a constitutional amendment to
preclude same-sex marriage, and ongoing hostility towards the LGBTQ
community is not qualitatively different from the evidence presented at her initial
asylum hearing. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987.
2. Akopian also claims that the BIA violated her due process rights by taking
administrative notice of the U.S. Department of State’s 2015 Country Report on
Human Rights Conditions in Georgia without giving her notice and an opportunity
to respond. Because the 2015 Country Report contained information similar to that
proffered by Akopian, there were no “controversial” or “individualized” facts
requiring notice and an opportunity to respond. Getachew v. I.N.S., 25 F.3d 841,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
846 (9th Cir. 1994). Moreover, Akopian has failed to demonstrate prejudice.
Circu v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 990, 995 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --