Case ID: f-appx_167/html/0693-01.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 Minasyan; Sahak Minasyan; Hakob Minasyan, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70843.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
    
    Decided Feb. 21, 2006.
    Gabriel Minaysyan Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Hasmik Minasyan, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Sahak Minasyan, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Hakob Minasyan, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Genevieve Holm, Esq., Earle B. Wilson, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously Ends this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gabriel Minasyan, his wife Hasmik Minasyan and his two sons, Sahak and Hakob Minasyan, petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their untimely motion to reconsider the BIA’s order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying asylum and to reopen proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the petitioners’ contention that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen the proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

Further, Minaysyan’s due process argument fails because the record shows that the BIA mailed the briefing schedule to Minaysyan’s most recent address of record. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1164, 1167-68 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.