Case ID: f-appx_535/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gabriel MINASYAN; Hasmik Minassian; Hakob Minasyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70743.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed July 31, 2013.
    Gabriel Minasyan, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gabriel Minasyan, Hasmik Minassian, and Hakob Minasyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) March 15, 2011, order denying their motion to reconsider and/or reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion denials of motions to reconsider and motions to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In their motion to the BIA, petitioners argued the BIA erred previously by not considering all the evidence they submitted. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider where the motion did not establish any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

We lack jurisdiction to address petitioners’ contentions related to the BIA’s 2010 decision denying their prior motion to reopen because the petition for review is untimely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir.2008) (an untimely petition for review must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.