Robeena Babkhanian v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBEENA BABKHANIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70512
Agency No. A075-649-389
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: R. NELSON and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and SCHREIER,*** District
Judge.
Robeena Babkhanian petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her second motion to reopen removal proceedings. “We
* 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).
*** The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of removal.” Wang
v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). We review the
denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d
960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and deny the petition.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) previously ordered Babkhanian removed to Iran
after Babkhanian admitted through counsel in the earlier proceedings that she is a
native and citizen of Iran. In her first and second motions to reopen, Babkhanian
claims to be a native and citizen of Armenia named Violet Babakhanyan. She
seeks to reopen based on changed country conditions in Armenia.
Babkhanian filed her second motion to reopen nearly fourteen years after the
IJ ordered her removed to Iran. Her second motion to reopen is time and number-
barred absent an applicable exception. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2). Motions to reopen may be excepted from the time and number
limitations based on changed circumstances arising in an applicant’s country of
nationality. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). “[A] prima
facie case for relief is sufficient to justify reopening . . . and a prima facie case is
established when the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory
requirements for relief have been satisfied.” Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250,
1254-55 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here, the BIA concluded that Babkhanian failed to demonstrate an

-- 2 of 3 --

3
applicable exception to the time and number limitations because she failed to offer
persuasive evidence that she is a native and citizen of Armenia, or that her prior
admission that she is a native and citizen of Iran was false. The BIA did not abuse
its discretion because, considering the entire record that was before the agency,
Babkhanian failed to make a prima facie case that she was Armenian. She never
explained, through an affidavit or otherwise, why she and her family previously
claimed to be Iranian and why that claim was false. Nor did she explain how her
family members were natives and citizens of Iran, yet she is a native and citizen of
Armenia. Because Babkhanian failed to make a prima facie case that she is indeed
Armenian and not Iranian, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding the
changed conditions evidence irrelevant or in denying the motion to reopen.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --