Summary
The Ninth Circuit denied the government’s motion to dismiss or for summary disposition in Armen Kazarian’s petition challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge’s removal order. The court held that the BIA’s June 17, 2025 decision constituted a final order of removal and that defects in Kazarian’s petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c) did not warrant dismissal because the government had adequate notice and suffered no prejudice. The court also granted a stay of removal and appointed pro bono counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the BIA's June 17, 2025 decision affirming the IJ's removal order constituted a final order of removal reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), despite Kazarian's misidentification of the decision date.
- Whether Kazarian's failure to attach the BIA order and state whether a court had upheld its validity, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c), warranted dismissal or summary denial when the government had adequate notice of the challenged order and was not prejudiced.
- Whether Kazarian was entitled to a stay of removal and appointment of pro bono counsel while his petition for review proceeded.
Holdings
- The BIA's June 17, 2025 decision affirming the immigration judge's removal order resulted in a final order of removal reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), notwithstanding Kazarian's incorrect statement of the decision date.
- Failure to comply precisely with the identification and attachment requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c) does not require dismissal or summary denial when the petition functionally identifies the challenged order, provides the government sufficient notice, and causes no prejudice.
- The motion for a stay of removal was granted, and the stay remained in place until the mandate issued.
Key quotations
“In assessing whether a failure to satisfy such requirements warrants dismissal or summary affirmance, we apply such requirements functionally, not inflexibly.” (at 5)
“Under these circumstances, Kazarian’s failure to comply with the precise requirements of § 1252(c) does not warrant dismissing or denying his petition.” (at 8)
Factual background
Kazarian, a pro se detained petitioner, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The immigration judge denied relief, and the BIA affirmed the resulting removal order on June 17, 2025. In his petition for review, Kazarian identified the challenged decision by the incorrect date of July 16, 2025 and did not attach the BIA order, but his petition and stay motion made clear that he challenged the BIA's June 17 decision; the government located that decision and docketed it without difficulty.
Procedural history
The immigration judge denied Kazarian's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The BIA affirmed the IJ's removal order in a decision dated June 17, 2025. Kazarian petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, misstating the BIA decision date and failing to attach the decision or state whether a court had upheld its validity. The Ninth Circuit granted a stay of removal and appointment of pro bono counsel, denied the government's motion to dismiss or for summary disposition, and ordered a new briefing schedule after counsel was appointed.
Remand instructions
After pro bono counsel is appointed, the court will set a new briefing schedule. The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.