VIGEN VOSKANOVICH NAJARYAN, AKA Vigen Najaryan v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIGEN VOSKANOVICH NAJARYAN,
AKA Vigen Najaryan,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 15-72491
16-71632
Agency No. A077-823-840
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 11, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,**
District Judge.
Petitioner Vigen Najaryan (Najaryan) petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) denial of his two untimely motions to reopen
premised on changed country conditions and a change in the law.
FILED
MAR 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Petition No. 15-72491
We dismiss Najaryan’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of sua sponte
reopening based on changed country conditions because Najaryan fails to
demonstrate the requisite legal or constitutional error. See Menendez v. Whitaker,
908 F.3d 467, 471 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that “we have jurisdiction to review
the reasoning behind the BIA’s sua sponte denial of reopening for the limited
purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional
error”). (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Petition No. 16-71632
Relying on Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010), Najaryan asserts
that the BIA erred in denying sua sponte reopening premised on a change in law
rendering his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Cal.
Penal Code § 245(a)(2) a non-removable offense. Although the Supreme Court
decided Johnson in 2010, Najaryan never challenged his prior conviction based on
Johnson’s holding prior to the BIA’s 2011 decision, or prior to our denial of
Najaryan’s petition for review in 2015. See Najaryan v. Holder, 593 F. App’x 707,
708 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that Najaryan’s conviction in violation of Cal. Penal
Code § 245(a)(2) was a removable offense). Thus, there was no “fundamental
change in the law . . . . represent[ing] a departure from established principles”
2

-- 2 of 3 --

warranting sua sponte reopening. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 585 (9th Cir.
2016), as amended (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In any event, we have held post-Johnson that assault with a deadly weapon
in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245(a)(1) constitutes a crime of violence. See
United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2018)
(holding that our pre-Johnson precedent remains valid because a conviction in
violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245 is categorically a crime of violence); see also
United States v. Guizar-Rodriguez, 900 F.3d 1044, 1049 n.5 (9th Cir. 2018)
(concluding that “even the least touching with a deadly weapon or instrument is
violent in nature,” and this “reasoning applies even after Johnson”) (citation,
alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted).
Petition For Review in No. 15-72491 DISMISSED.
Petition For Review in No. 16-71632 DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --