Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0570-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Garen SHAMEYAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70987
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 8, 2016  Pasadena, California
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Ruben Neshan Sarkisian, Attorney, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner
    Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Jennifer R. Khouri, Attorney, OIL, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Garen Shameyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his motion to reconsider and reopen.

Shameyan’s only argument on appeal— that the BIA erred in not reopening his case in light of our decision in Quintero-Solazar v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2007)—involves an exercise of the BIA’s sua sponte authority. See In re G-D-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999). Sham-eyan does not claim that the BIA made any legal or constitutional error, cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016), and we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, see Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Shameyan waived his claims that the BIA erred in rejecting Dr. Jasmine Tehrani’s psychological evaluation, and that the BIA erred in reaffirming its prior decision denying equitable tolling. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).