Case ID: f-appx_529/html/0860-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hovik MANUKYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73981.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    A. Ashley Gambourian, Law Offices of A. Ashley Gambourian, Burbank, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sarah Maloney, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hovik Manukyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and to reissue its previous decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Manukyan’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than six years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Manukyan failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

The BIA sufficiently addressed Manuk-yan’s contentions related to the nonattor-ney who assisted him. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (the BIA need only “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (internal quotations omitted)).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Manukyan’s remaining contentions.

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