Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hambardzum MIRZOYAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71934
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 21, 2017
    Hambardzum Mirzoyan, Pro Se
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, 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

Hambardzum Mirzoyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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. Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mirzoyan’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed nearly ten years after his final administrative order of removal, and he failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-89 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the country reports submitted with the motion to reopen described conditions similar to those found in the previously provided reports; the new evidence must be “qualitatively different"' to warrant reopening).

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