Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Hrair Kaladjian, Petitioner v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al.

la

APPENDIX A — ORDER OF THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

NINTH CIRCUIT, DATED NOVEMBER 9, 2022

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-55776

D.C. No. 5:22-cv-00733-SVW-AS

Central District of California, Riverside

HRAIR KALADJIAN, ESQUIRE

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; et al,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and W. FLETCHER,

Circuit Judges.

A review of the record and the opening brief indicates

that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial

as not to require further argument. See United States

v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating

standard). Accordingly, appellees’ motion for summary

2a

Appendix A

affirmance of the district court’s May 11, 2022 order

(Docket Entry No. 2) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

3a

APPENDIX B — OPINION OF THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

FILED MAY 11, 2022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

Date

Title

5:22-cv-00733-SVW-AS

5/11/2022

Hrair Kaladjian v. Joseph R. Biden et al

JS-6

Present:

The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Proceedings: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER [2] AND DISMISSING CASE

Before the Court is a ex parte application for a

temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary

injunction brought by Plaintiff Hrair Kaladjian.1 For

the reasons below, the application is DENIED because

Plaintiff lacks standing. For the same reason, this case

is DISMISSED with prejudice.

1. Though Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, Plaintiff is not the

typical layperson pro se plaintiff; rather, Plaintiff is a practicing

attorney licensed by the State of California.

4a

Appendix B

Plaintiff brought this action against President Biden,

Secretary of State Blinken, and the U.S. Department

of State and filed the instant TRO application to enjoin

Defendants from waiving Section 907 of the Freedom

Support Act of 1992 (“FSA”). See Mem. ISO Ex Parte App.

1, ECF No. 3 (“PL Br.”). Section 907 of the FSA restricts

foreign aid to the government of Azerbaijan unless

the President concludes and reports to Congress that

Azerbaijan has taken steps to end blockades and offensive

military actions against Armenia. However, the Foreign

Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

Appropriations Act of 2002 authorizes the President to

waive Section 907 on an annual basis. Defendants submit

that President Bush first exercised this waiver authority

in 2002, and the waiver has been extended each year

thereafter to facilitate aid to Azerbaijan in support of

counter-terrorism goals. See Opp. to PI. Br., ECF No. 18

(“Opp.”).

Plaintiff claims that the waiver of Section 907

violates his equal protection rights because it facilitates

discrimination against those of Armenian descent, such as

himself, and Plaintiff also claims that the waiver violates

the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) by failing to

comply with certain reporting requirements. PI. Br. 8;

Compl. Ilf 1, 38-55.

However, Plaintiffs claims fail at the starting gate

because Plaintiff lacks standing. To establish Article

III standing, Plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact,

(2) causation between his injury and the complained-of

conduct, and (3) a likelihood that the requested relief would

redress his injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555,560-61,112 S. Ct. 2130,119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992).

Plaintiff cannot establish any of these three requirements.

5a

Appendix B

First, Plaintiff has not articulated any “concrete” and

“particularized” harm that he faces. Id. at 560. Plaintiff

refers only to generalized “discrimination and violence”

or “Armenophobia” that will be inflicted upon him in some

unspecified form, by unspecified actors, in an unspecified

time and place. See, e.g., PI. Br. 8-9, 11; Compl. Iflf 19,

36. The closest Plaintiff comes to identifying a concrete

injury in fact is noting his inability to travel to Azerbaijan

because its government bars entry by those of Armenian

ancestry. See PI. Br. 9-11; Compl. HH 42-45. Yet even this

is nothing more than “pure speculation,” as Plaintiff has

not expressed any actual desire to travel to Azerbaijan.

See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 567; see generally Kaladjian Decl.,

ECF No. 4.

Moreover, even liberally construing Plaintiffs papers

and assuming that he had plausibly alleged some imminent

injury in fact, say a threat of bodily harm from some

ethno-nationalist Azerbaijani faction in the United States,

Plaintiff would still lack standing because he cannot show

causation or redressability. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.

Plaintiffs implicit theory of causation seems to be

as follows: (a) the waiver of Section 907 permits U.S.

foreign aid to flow to the government of Azerbaijan; (b)

U.S. foreign aid bolsters the Azerbaijani government;

and (c) thereby facilitates the Azerbaijani government’s

discriminatory rhetoric and policy; which (d) supports or

influences anti-Armenian groups in the United States; who

(e) then become more likely to target Plaintiff specifically

for violence (or other discriminatory conduct).

The speculative leaps in Plaintiffs logic are simply

gargantuan. The causal chain is too attenuated to

withstand scrutiny. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 569-71. Plaintiff

6a

Appendix B

has offered nothing — absolutely nothing — to suggest

that if the U.S. government were barred from providing

foreign aid to Azerbaijan, its government would end its

anti-Armenian policies and pronouncements.2 Nor is

there any reason to suspect that even if the Azerbaijani

government did change its tune, anti-Armenian groups

here in the U.S. would do likewise and cease any

discrimination they would have otherwise directed toward

Plaintiff. Thus, there is simply no basis no conclude that

granting Plaintiff the relief he requests — enjoining

further foreign aid to Azerbaijan — is likely to redress the

alleged harm Plaintiff identifies — anti-Armenian animus

here in the United States. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 570-71.

Indeed, in the Court’s view, this case is a paradigmatic

example of a lack of standing: a Plaintiff who invokes

generic, generalized claims of injury, which, to the extent

they are cognizable at all, are the product of “unfettered

choices made by independent actors” - not the Defendants’

complained-of conduct. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562

(internal citations and quotations omitted). Such claims

do not present a “case or controversy” that is justiciable

in federal court. See id.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for TRO is

DENIED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice

for lack of standing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2. Indeed, if anything, Plaintiffs papers suggest the opposite:

given that Plaintiffs application notes the long-running ethnic

strife in the region, see PL Br. 1-3, the most obvious inference is that

the Azerbaijani government would persist in its animus towards

Armenians.

7a

APPENDIX C — CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

U.S. CONST., ART. Ill, SEC. 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law

and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws

of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall

be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting

Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to

all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to

Controversies to which the United States shall be a

Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—

between a State and Citizens of another State,— between

Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the

same State claiming Lands under Grants of different

States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and

foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers

and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,

the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In

all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court

shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,

with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the

Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment,

shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State

where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but

when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be

at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have

directed.

8a

Appendix C

U.S. CONST., AMEND. V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or

indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in

the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual

service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any

person be subject for the same offence to be twice put

in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any

criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process

of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,

without just compensation.

9a

Appendix C

22 U.S.C. §5812

§5812. Program coordination, implementation, and

oversight

(a) Coordination

The President shall designate, within the Department of

State, a coordinator who shall be responsible for(1) designing an overall assistance and economic

cooperation strategy for the independent states of the

former Soviet Union;

(2) ensuring program and policy coordination among

agencies of the United States Government in carrying out

the policies set forth in this Act (including the amendments

made by this Act and chapter 12 of part I of the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2296 et seq.]);

(3) pursuing coordination with other countries and

international organizations with respect to assistance to

independent states;

(4) ensuring that United States assistance programs

for the independent states are consistent with this Act

(including the amendments made by this Act and chapter

12 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22

U.S.C. 2296 et seq.]);

(5) ensuring proper management, implementation, and

oversight by agencies responsible for assistance programs

for the independent states; and

10a

Appendix C

(6) resolving policy and program disputes among United

States Government agencies with respect to United States

assistance for the independent states.

(b) Export promotion activities

Consistent with subsection (a), coordination of activities

related to the promotion of exports of United States goods

and services to the independent states of the former Soviet

Union shall continue to be primarily the responsibility of

the Secretary of Commerce, in the Secretary’s role as

Chair of the Trade Promotion Coordination Committee.

(c) International economic activities

Consistent with subsection (a), coordination of activities

relating to United States participation in international

financial institutions and relating to organization of

multilateral efforts aimed at currency stabilization,

currency convertibility, debt reduction, and comprehensive

economic reform programs shall continue to be primarily

the responsibility of the Secretary of the Treasury, in the

Secretary’s role as Chair of the National Advisory Council

on International Monetary and Financial Policies and as

the United States Governor of the international financial

institutions.

(d) Accountability forfunds

Any agency managing and implementing an assistance

program for the independent states of the former Soviet

Union shall be accountable for any funds made available

to it for such program.

11a

Appendix C

(Pub. L. 102-511, title I, §102, Oct. 2k, 1992,106Stat. 3322;

Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(2) [title V, §596(c)], Nov.

29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1535, 1501A-126.)

Editorial Notes

References in Text

This Act, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), (4), is Pub. L.

102-511, Oct. 24,1992,106 Stat. 3320, as amended, known

as the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian

Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992

and also as the FREEDOM Support Act. For complete

classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note

set out under section 5801 of this title and Tables.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, referred to in subsec.

(a)(2), (4), is Pub. L. 87-195, Sept. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 424,

as amended. Chapter 12 of part I of the Act is classified

generally to part XII [§2296 et seq.] of subchapter I of

chapter 32 of this title. For complete classification of this

Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section

2151 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1999-Subsec. (a)(2), (4). Pub. L. 106-113 substituted “this

Act and chapter 12 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act

of 1961)” for “this Act)”.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Russian and Ukrainian Business Management

Education

12a

Appendix C

Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, §1000(a)(7) [div. A, title IV, subtitle

B], Nov. 29,1999,113 Stat 1536,150lA-l(.lp8, provided that:

“SEC. W. PURPOSE.

“The purpose of this subtitle is to establish a training

program in Russia and Ukraine for nationals of those

countries to obtain skills in business administration,

accounting, and marketing, with special emphasis on

instruction in business ethics and in the basic terminology,

techniques, and practices of those disciplines, to achieve

international standards of quality, transparency, and

competitiveness.

“SEC. m- DEFINITIONS.

“In this subtitle:

“(1) Distance learning.-The term ‘distance learning’

means training through computers, interactive videos,

teleconferencing, and videoconferencing between and

among students and teachers.

“(2) Eligible enterprise.-The term ‘eligible enterprise’ •

means“(A) in the case of Russia“(i) a business concern operating in Russia that employs

Russian nationals in Russia; or

13a

Appendix C

“(ii) a private enterprise that is being formed or operated

by former officers of the Russian armed forces in Russia;

and

“(B) in the case of Ukraine“(i) a business concern operating in Ukraine that employs

Ukrainian nationals in Ukraine; or

“(ii) a private enterprise that is being formed or operated

by former officers of the Ukrainian armed forces in

Ukraine.

“(3) Eligible national.-The term ‘eligible national’ means

the employee of an eligible enterprise who is employed in

the program country.

“(4) Program.-The term ‘program’ means the program of

technical assistance established under section 423.

“(5) Program country.-The term ‘program country’ means“(A) Russia in the case of any eligible enterprise operating

in Russia that receives technical assistance under the

program; or

“(B) Ukraine in the case of any eligible enterprise

operating in Ukraine that receives technical assistance

under the program.

“SEC. 1*23. AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAINING

PROGRAM AND INTERNSHIPS.

14a

Appendix C

“(a) Training Program.

“(1) In general.-The President is authorized to establish

a program of technical assistance to provide the training

described in section 421 to eligible enterprises.

“(2) Implementation.-Training shall be carried out by

United States nationals having expertise in business

administration, accounting, and marketing or by eligible

nationals who have been trained under the program. Such

training may be carried out“(A) in the offices of eligible enterprises, at business

schools or institutes, or at other locations in the program

country, including facilities of the armed forces of the

program country, educational institutions, or in the

offices of trade or industry associations, with special

consideration given to locations where similar training

opportunities are limited or nonexistent; or

“(B) by ‘distance learning’ programs originating in the

United States or in European branches of United States

institutions.

“(b) Internships With United States Domestic Business

Concerns.-Authorized program costs may include the

travel expenses and appropriate in-country business

English language training, if needed, of eligible nationals

who have completed training under the program to

undertake shortterm internships with business concerns

in the United States.

15a

Appendix C

“SEC. m. APPLICATIONS FOR TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE.

“(a) Procedures.“(1) In general.-Each eligible enterprise that desires to

receive training for its employees and managers under this

subtitle shall submit an application to the clearinghouse

under subsection (c), at such time, in such manner, and

accompanied by such additional information as may

reasonably be required.

“(2) Joint applications.-A consortium of eligible enterprises

may file a joint application under the provisions of

paragraph (1).

“(b) Contents.-An application under subsection (a) may be

approved only if the application“(1) is for an individual or individuals employed in an

eligible enterprise or enterprises applying under the

program;

“(2) describes the level of training for which assistance

under this subtitle is sought;

“(3) provides evidence that the eligible enterprise meets

the general policies adopted for the administration of this

subtitle;

“(4) provides assurances that the eligible enterprise will

pay a share of the costs of the training, which share may

include in-kind contributions; and

16a

Appendix C

“(5) provides such additional assurances as are determined

to be essential to ensure compliance with the requirements

of this subtitle.

“(c) Clearinghouse.-A clearinghouse shall be established

or designated in each program country to manage and

execute the program in that country. The clearinghouse

shall screen applications, provide information regarding

training and teachers, monitor performance of the

program, and coordinate appropriate post-program

follow-on activities.

“SEC. 125. RESTRICTIONS NOT APPLICABLE.

“Prohibitions on the use of foreign assistance funds for

assistance for the Russian Federation or for Ukraine

shall not apply with respect to the funds made available

to carry out this subtitle..

“SEC. W- AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

“(a) In General.-There is authorized to be appropriated

$10,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000 and $10,000,000 for

the fiscal year 2001 to carry out this subtitle.

“(b) Availability of Funds.-Amounts appropriated under

subsection (a) are authorized to remain available until

expended.”

Restriction on Assistance to Azerbaijan

Pub. L. 107-115, title II [(g)(2)-(6)J, Jan. 10, 2002,115Stat.

2129, provided that:

17a

Appendix C

“(2) The President may waive section 907 of the

FREEDOM Support Act [Pub. L. 102-511, set out below]

if he determines and certifies to the Committees on

Appropriations that to do so“(A) is necessary to support United States efforts to

counter international terrorism; or

“(B) is necessary to support the operational readiness

of United States Armed Forces or coalition partners to

counter international terrorism; or

“(C) is important to Azerbaijan’s border security; and

“(D) will not undermine or hamper ongoing efforts to

negotiate a peaceful settlement between Armenia and

Azerbaijan or be used for offensive purposes against

Armenia.

“(3) The authority of paragraph (2) may only be exercised

through December 31, 2002.

“(4) The President may extend the waiver authority

provided in paragraph (2) on an annual basis on or after

December 31, 2002 if he determines and certifies to the

Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the

provisions of paragraph (2).

“(5) The Committees on Appropriations shall be consulted

prior to the provision of any assistance made available

pursuant to paragraph (2).

18a

Appendix C

“(6) Within 60 days of any exercise of the authority under

paragraph (2) the President shall send a report to the

appropriate congressional committees specifying in detail

the following“(A) the nature and quantity of all training and assistance

provided to the Government of Azerbaijan pursuant to

paragraph (2);

“(B) the status of the military balance between Azerbaijan

and Armenia and the impact of United States assistance

on that balance; arid

“(C) the status of negotiations for a peaceful settlement

between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the impact of

United States assistance on those negotiations.”

[Functions of President under subsecs, (g)(4) and (6) of

title II of Pub. L. 107-115, set out above, delegated to

Secretary ofiState by section 1—100(a)(13) of Ex. Ord. No.

12163, Sept. 29,1979,44 F.R. 56673, as amended, set out

as a note under section 2381 of this title.]

Pub. L. 102-511, title IX, §907, Oct. 2h, 1992, 106 Stat.

3357, provided that: “United States assistance under this

or any other Act (other than assistance under title V of

this Act [22 U.S.C. 5851 et seq.]) may not be provided

to the Government of Azerbaijan until the President

determines, and so reports to the Congress, that the

Government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps

to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force

against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh ”

19a

Appendix C

Supportfor Macroeconomic Stabilization in Independent

States of Former Soviet Union Pub. L. 102-511, title X,

§100k, Oct. 2k, 1992, 106 Stat. 3360, provided that:

“(a) In General.-In order to promote macroeconomic

stabilization and the integration of the independent states

of the former Soviet Union into the international financial

system, enhance the opportunities for trade, improve the

climate for foreign investment, and strengthen the process

of transformation of the former socialist economies

into free enterprise systems and thereby progressively

enhance the well-being of the citizens of these states,

the United States should in appropriate circumstances

take a leading role in organizing and supporting

multilateral efforts at macroeconomic stabilization

and debt rescheduling, conditioned on the appropriate

development and implementation of comprehensive

economic reform programs.

“(b) Currency Stabilization.-In furtherance of the purposes

and consistent with the conditions described in subsection

(a), the Congress expresses its support for United States

participation, in sums of up to $3,000,000,000, in a

currency stabilization fund or funds for the independent

states of the former Soviet Union.

“(c) Study of the Need for and Feasibility of a Currency

Stabilization Fund for Ukraine.-The Secretary of the

Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive

Director of the International Monetary Fund to use the

voice and vote of the United States to urge the Fund to

conduct a study of the need for and feasibility of a currency

20a

Appendix C

stabilization fund for Ukraine, and, if it is found that such a

fund is needed and is feasible, which considers and makes

recommendations with respect to the economic and policy

conditions required for the success of such a fund.”

Report on Debt of Former Soviet Union Held by

Commercial Financial Institutions

Pub. L. 102-511, title X, §1007, Oct U, 1992,106 Stat. 3361,

directed Secretary of the Treasury, using information

available from the International Monetary Fund, the

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,

and other appropriate international financial institutions,

to report to Congress, not later than one year after Oct.

24,1992, on the debt incurred by the former Soviet Union

that is held by commercial financial institutions outside

the independent states of the former Soviet Union that

are obligated on such debt.