Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mersen Georgievich MARYANYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. Mersen Georgievich Maryanyan; et al., Petitioners, v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 10-73282, 11-71671.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Aug. 12, 2015.
    Filed Sept. 15, 2015.
    Garth Alfred Molander, Esquire, Law Offices of Garth A. Molander, Bohemia, NY, for Petitioners.
    Oil, Kevin James Conway, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA.
    Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Mersen Georgievich Maryanyan, his wife Marina Nikolayevna Maryanyan, and their children Aleksandra Mersenovna Maryanyan and Narina Mersenovna Mar-yanyan (“Petitioners”), Soviet Union natives and Russian citizens, appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motions to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petitions. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. .§ 1003.2(c)(2), and Petitioners failed to establish changed country conditions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008). Also, Petitioners’ due process claim fails as counsel’s filing a single petition for the family did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000). Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the reconsideration motion because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

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