Grigoryan
Grigoryan v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Karen Grigoryan, his wife, Sona Arustamyan, and their three children, Tehmine, *831 Arsen and Mher Grigoryan, petition for review of the denial of their claims for asylum and withholding of removal to Armenia. They also challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)’s denial of their motion to remand their case for consideration of new evidence and a claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
I.
Karen Grigoryan applied for asylum on the ground that he had suffered persecution on the basis of his economic philosophy and perceived opposition to certain Armenian government officials. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) held that he could not review Grigoryan’s claim for asylum because Grigoryan had filed his application on behalf of himself and his family more than one year after he entered the United States and no exception applied to excuse the untimely filing. 2 See INA § 208(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B). We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Karen Grigoryan’s application for asylum was untimely and that no changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the late filing. See INA § 208(a)(8), 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(3). Because the…