Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0627-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Astghik Noriki VARDANYAN; Artyom Khachatryan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73935.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 1, 2011.
    Leah W. Hurwitz, Leah W. Hurwitz AP. L.C., San Diego, CA, for Petitioners.
    Catherine B. Bye, Seth A. Director, Karen L. Melnik, 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: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Astghik Noriki Vardanyan and Artyom Khachatryan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their 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, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion because they failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, see Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir.2005), or prima facie eligibility for asylum, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen is not persuasive.

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