Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0508-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Karine MOVSESYAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73887
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed October 3, 2017
    A. Ashley Gambourian, Attorney, Law Offices of A. Ashley Gambourian, Burbank, CA, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, 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

Karine Movsesyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Movsesyan’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Movsesyan failed to establish a material change in circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (evidence must be material); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination). We reject Movsesyan’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider arguments.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
      .This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.