Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0192-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vardan KARAPETYAN; Paytsar Hovakimyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-75153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
    Sassoun Nalbandian, Law Offices of Sassoun A. Nalbandian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vardan Karapetyan and Paytsar Hovakimyan, natives of the former Soviet Union 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, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed over four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions).

We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not adequately consider the issues raised in the motion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir .2010).

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.