Gasparian v. Holder, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24836

Petitioners Ashot, Vergine, and Haik Gasparian are Armenian nationals ordered removed after asylum denial in 1997; they have resided in the United States since and filed a motion to reopen in 2011.
BIA denied the 2011 motion to reopen; petitioners timely appealed to the First Circuit.
Initial asylum claim involved threats to Ashot tied to Armenian–Azerbaijani tensions and his past business dealings; government connection unclear.
Petitioners overstayed visas; family settled in Rhode Island; Haik is now an adult with college attendance and employment.
1994 asylum/withholding CAT applications were denied in 1995 and 1997; 1998 motion to reopen was untimely; petitioners continued to live in the U.S. without removal actions for years.
The court addressed whether to reopen relief and whether to consider prosecutorial discretion under Morton Memo, and stayed removals for 90 days for Haik and for the parents to avoid family separation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA properly denied the motion to reopen based on changed circumstances.	Gasparians.	BIA validly weighed evidence; no substantial change.	No reversible error; petition denied on this issue.
Whether the new tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan constitute material changed circumstances.	Gasparians contend renewed risk supports relief.	Tensions speculative; threats decades past not material.	Insufficient to warrant reopening relief.
Whether the court should review the government's prosecutorial discretion under Morton Memo.	Court should assess to avoid perpetuating removal.	No jurisdiction to review prosecutorial discretion.	Court declines to compel relief but notes discretionary considerations and stays removal for 90 days.
Whether Haik qualifies for deferred action or similar relief; and related family separation concerns.	Haik may seek relief under new program; potential for deferred action.	Relief discretionary and not guaranteed; no order to defer removal.	Stay of mandate for Haik to permit application; similar stay extended to Ashot and Vergine to avoid family separation.
Whether the Gasparians’ stay of removal should be extended pending consideration of relief.	Family unity considerations warrant broader relief.	Relief not ordinarily granted; discretionary determinations remain with the government.	Stays issued for 90 days to permit consideration.

Meguenine v. INS, 139 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 1998) (general fears of future harm not sufficient for asylum)
Le Bin Zhu v. Holder, 622 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2010) (changed circumstances must ground eligibility for relief)
Aponte v. Holder, 683 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2012) (agency decisions reviewed for arbitrariness or legal error)
Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2007) (requirements for nunc pro tunc or late filings tied to material changes)