Case ID: f-appx_522/html/0383-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aregnaz AZATYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72960.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 4, 2013.
    
    Decided June 10, 2013.
    Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, James Eugene Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aregnaz Azatyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Azatyan’s motion to reopen because it was her third motion to reopen and it was filed more than three years after the BIA’s November 23, 2005, final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Azatyan’s motion to reopen on the ground that Azatyan failed to present material and previously unavailable evidence of changed circumstances to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).

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