Simon Harutyunyan v. Eric Holder, Jr.
512 F. App'x 548
6th Cir.2013Background
- Harutyunyan couple from Armenia seek asylum; Simon supported National Unity Party but was not member.
- Simon endured prolonged police detention and torture after being recruited to distribute opposition materials in 2006.
- Simon’s medical injuries were described as grave, but contemporaneous records and application disclosures were inconsistent.
- IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT due to adverse credibility; BIA remanded to consider corroborative evidence.
- On remand, IJ doubted medical corroboration and the death threats not mentioned in I-589; BIA affirmed the adverse credibility finding.
- Harutyunyans petition for review challenging credibility, bias, and due-process arguments; petition denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility finding supported by substantial evidence under REAL ID Act | Harutyunyans argue inconsistencies and omissions undermine credibility | IJ/BIA properly relied on omissions and inconsistencies under totality of circumstances | No clear error; substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding |
| Bias claim regarding IJ/BIA impartiality | IJ biased against petitioners based on questioning | No demonstrated bias; claim waived or unsupported | Waived to extent asserted as bias; no error in findings on the merits |
| Three-member panel requirement constitutes due process | BIA violated due process by not using a three-judge panel | Board has discretion to use one member; no due process violation | No due process violation; Board’s discretion upheld |
| Due-process and sameness of decisionmaker on remand | Failure to assign same decisionmaker violated due process | Regulations do not guarantee same judge; no due process violation | No due process violation; single-member review deemed permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Hachem v. Holder, 656 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 2011) (review of BIA/IJ under REAL ID Act; totality of circumstances)
- Mostafa v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Abdurakhmanov v. Holder, 666 F.3d 978 (6th Cir. 2012) (separate review of each inconsistency for credibility)
- Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 2011) (omissions and inconsistencies support adverse credibility)
- Ileana v. INS, 106 F. App’x 349 (6th Cir. 2004) (materiality of family questioning in persecution analysis)
- Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2009) (addressed panel assignment; moot where later action)
- Koussan v. Holder, 556 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2009) (Board discretion on panel size; not guaranteed)
- Tapia-Martinez v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2007) (panel discretion for complex reviews)