holding that petitioner failed to establish persecution where he “presented no evidence that the Armenian government would target him for conscription . . . on account of his religion or other protected ground”
How later courts described this case
- holding that petitioner failed to establish persecution where he “presented no evidence that the Armenian government would target him for conscription . . . on account of his religion or other protected ground”
- explaining that the BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it denied the motion in a footnote that stated “[t]he respondent’s motion to reopen is denied” without additional explanation
- holding that forced conscription or punishment for evasion of military duty generally does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground
- stating that it is well settled “that the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GOODWIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, and dissenting in part.
I concur in part II. B. of the opinion, holding that the BIA abused its discretion in failing to articulate reasons for denying Movsisian’s motion to reopen, and remanding for a statement of reasons. However, I do not join in Part II. A. which expresses an opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s case for asylum and withholding of deportation. No convincing reasons have been called to my attention for this court to decide, on the merits, that the petitioner has a losing case, and then to remand the case to the forum from which the appeal was taken, so that forum could state its reasons for the denial. All courts dealing with the flood of immigration petitions are too busy, and our forests are too depleted, to justify this formality.