Martirosyan

Martirosyan v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Good Law
229 F.3d 903
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 6, 2000No. 98-70979California6,278 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pregerson, J.

Opinion by Judge PREGERSON; Dissent by Judge WALLACE.

Mesrop Martirosyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) decision to adopt and affirm the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of his request for asylum and withholding of deportation. The IJ found that Martirosyan failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. Martirosyan asserts that, under our holding in Barraza Rivera v. INS, 913 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir.1990), he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Armenia on account of his political opinion as a conscientious objector. Martirosyan fled the country after refusing to serve in the Armenian military at a prisoner-of-war (“POW”) camp where he would have been forced to perpetrate inhuman acts against POWs. Despite finding Martirosyan credible, the IJ (and the BIA) dismissed his claim as “speculative.” On appeal, Martirosyan argues that the IJ and BIA erred in so ruling. We agree.

*906 Martirosyan also argues on appeal that the BIA violated his due process rights by failing to examine adequately the documentary evidence that he presented in support of his request. It is…

Dissenting Opinion

Wallace, J.

dissenting:

The majority opinion invites a stern rebuke from the Supreme Court by conflicting with controlling case law and for misapplying the proper standard of review. The majority orders asylum for a draft dodger who offered no evidence in support of his claim that he would have been forced to commit war crimes had he not fled Armenia. Accordingly, I must dissent.

I

The majority’s factual review is extensive. However, the only relevant question before us is whether Martirosyan proved he would have been forced to commit war crimes had he not evaded the draft in his home country. We should focus on the facts dealing with this issue.

As an officer in the Soviet army, Marti-rosyan was sent to Kazakhstan in 1988 to work as a “counselor.” He described himself as the Soviet equivalent of an Aneri-can Army’s “chaplain” and testified that his job was to boost the morale of soldiers returning from the conflict in Afghanistan and to reindoctrinate those who had strayed from the ideals of Communism.

Despite his orders, Martirosyan felt that the best way to improve the morale of the troops returning from the front would have been to send them home to their families instead of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.