The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Vahagn Paremuzyan, an Armenian national seeking to challenge his removal from the United States. The court's per curiam decision, issued Jan. 6, 2026, upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming an immigration judge's removal order.
The case stems from events that occurred over a decade ago in Stepanakert, a city in the South Caucasus region of Eurasia. According to court documents, Paremuzyan witnessed a brutal murder and subsequently became a target himself. The perpetrators beat him and kidnapped him in an apparent effort to silence his potential testimony about the crime.
Paremuzyan managed to escape his captors by telling them he needed to relieve himself. When they untied him, he fled to a nearby forest. Upon returning home, a friend informed him that his captors were associated with General Manvel Grigoryan, described in court documents as a high-level figure in the Armenian military. The friend also warned that the perpetrators were still seeking him.
Fearing for his safety, Paremuzyan initially fled to Moscow. However, he apparently faced continued threats there as well. He subsequently traveled to Mexico and crossed into the United States through a border crossing in San Diego, California, where he was apprehended and placed in removal proceedings.
The immigration case proceeded through the standard process, beginning with a hearing before an immigration judge. The immigration judge issued a removal order, which Paremuzyan then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA affirmed the immigration judge's decision, prompting Paremuzyan to file a petition for review with the federal appeals court.
The Eleventh Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Jill Pryor, Branch, and Grant. The court designated the case for its non-argument calendar, indicating it was decided based on the written record without oral arguments. The opinion was marked "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," meaning it cannot be cited as precedent in future cases.
Immigration cases often involve complex factual scenarios and multiple layers of legal review. Individuals facing removal proceedings can present various forms of relief, including asylum claims based on persecution or well-founded fear of persecution, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The specific legal arguments and basis for Paremuzyan's challenge to his removal order are not detailed in the available portion of the court's opinion. Immigration cases frequently involve credibility determinations, where immigration judges must assess the truthfulness and reliability of an applicant's testimony and supporting evidence.
The denial of Paremuzyan's petition means that the removal order remains in effect. Federal appeals courts review immigration decisions under a deferential standard, typically examining whether the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether it applied the correct legal standards.
The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over immigration appeals from Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. The court regularly handles a significant caseload of immigration matters, reflecting the region's role as a major entry point for immigrants and asylum seekers.
Petitioners who lose before the federal appeals court may seek further review by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such requests. Most immigration cases conclude at the circuit court level.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by individuals fleeing violence and persecution who seek protection in the United States. Immigration proceedings require applicants to meet specific legal standards and present sufficient evidence to support their claims for relief from removal.
Armenian nationals have historically faced various forms of political and ethnic persecution in different regions, though each case is evaluated on its individual merits. The immigration system requires detailed documentation and credible testimony to establish eligibility for protection.
Paremuzyan's case involved allegations of persecution related to his status as a witness to serious criminal activity involving high-level military figures. Such cases often present complex questions about the nature of persecution and whether government authorities in the home country are willing and able to provide protection.
The court's brief opinion reflects the procedural nature of the appeal and the deference typically afforded to lower immigration courts in factual determinations. The decision represents another example of the federal judiciary's role in reviewing immigration cases while maintaining established standards for relief from removal.
The case was assigned agency number A208-120-858 and federal court case number 25-10941, providing the administrative trail for the multi-year immigration proceedings that began with Paremuzyan's initial apprehension at the border.