HIGH PROFILE CASES

We have won many appeals cases, but these cases became precedents in asylum law at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

MORALES ALEGRIA v. GONZALES    9th. Circuit Court of Appeals    June 6, 2006

9th. Circuit precedent case

Decided by a panel of the Ninth Circuit on June 06, 2006. Petitioner sought review of a BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from a finding of an IJ that his conviction for the offense of forgery under California Penal Code section 476 rendered him removable as an aggravated felon under section 101(a)(43)(R). At issue in this finding was whether section 476 statutory requirements were broader than those of the immigration statute. The Court found that section 476 does require knowledge of the fictitious nature of the instrument, and therefore, it is not broader than the federal definition of “offense relating to…forgery” for purposes of qualifying as an “aggravated felony”.

Read this case in full HERE.

BAGHDASARYAN v. HOLDER    9th. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 05-72416.   January 13, 2010

9th. Circuit precedent case

Armen Baghdasaryan (“Baghdasaryan”) is a native and citizen of Armenia. Baghdasariyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Baghdasaryan was threatened, harassed, fined, detained, and beaten because he opposed the systemic government corruption, including the extortion of bribes, perpetrated by General H. Hakopian, a powerful politician and government official. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition in part and remand. 

The BIA found Baghdasaryan to be credible. Accordingly, we must accept Baghdasaryan’s testimony as true. See Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Testimony must be accepted as true in the absence of an explicit adverse credibility finding.”).

In Armenia, Baghdasaryan operated a small business making and distributing audio tapes from his home. In September 1995, Baghdasaryan moved his business to a store in a local market owned by General Hakopian, a well-known general at the Ministry of Defense, who later became a deputy of the National Assembly. The market was similar to a swap meet, with hundreds of vendors selling items in a large area. Baghdasaryan obtained the proper permit to sell his goods, paid tax on his sales, and remitted rent to General Hakopian for use of his space in the market. The record does not show whether General Hakopian was entitled to keep the entire amount of rent payments for himself.

One month later, Samvel Hakopian (“Samvel”), General Hakopian’s nephew, and several other men came to Baghdasaryan’s store and demanded $100 per month on behalf of the General, in addition to rent. Baghdasaryan refused to pay and filed a written complaint against General Hakopian with a local judge. When Baghdasaryan received a second visit from Samvel demanding money on General Hakopian’s behalf, he followed up on his judicial complaint. Shortly thereafter, Baghdasaryan was arrested and fined $100 by the tax authority for working without a license that no other vendor was required to have. Baghdasaryan could only operate his business if he paid a monthly $100 “surcharge” to the tax authority. Baghdasaryan eventually received the license after paying a $500 bribe.

Read this case in full HERE.

MINASYAN v. MUKASEY    9th. Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 06-73192    January 20, 2009

9th.Circuit precedent case

Petition for review of a denial of asylum is granted where the year within which an alien seeking asylum must file an application begins the day after the alien arrives in the U.S., thus petitioner’s application was timely.

Read this case in full HERE.