N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ASHOT AVOYAN,

Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-71834 Age n c y No. A071-069-916 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July 14, 2020 ** B e fore : GR

AB E R , TALLM AN, a

nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Ashot Avoy an, a native and c itiz e n of Arm e nia , se e ks re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny i ng his m otion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e d ings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for 

# FIL ED JUL 16 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a

buse o f disc re tion the de n i a l of a m o tion to re ope n. Ye

ghiazarya n v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 994, 998 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny the pe t ition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Avoy an’ s se c o nd, untim e ly
m otion to re o pe n , se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), whe re he fa ile d to qua l ify for an e xc e ption to the

tim e an d num be r lim ita tions, s e e id. § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii). A m otion to re ope n m ay

be file d a ny tim e for purpose s of se e king a sy l um , withholding of re m ova l, or C AT re lie f be c a use of c h ange d c ountry

c o nditions, if supporte d by e vide nc e tha

t is “ m ate ria l a

nd wa s not a

va ila ble and c o uld not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d or pre se nte d at the pre vious he aring.” Id. ; se e Go v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 604, 607–09 (9th C ir. 2014). Avoy an ’ s e vide nc e did not sa t isfy this re quire m e nt, whe re it did not e sta blish m ate ria l, c ha

nge d c irc um sta

n c e s in Arm e nia

sinc e Avoy a

n’ s fina l he aring on August 29, 2011. Se e Salim v . Ly nc h , 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ [T] he c ha

nge d c o untry

c onditions e xc e ption is c o nc e rne d with two points in tim e : the c irc um sta

nc e s of the c ountry

at the tim e of the pe titione r’ s pre vious he aring, a nd thoseat the tim e of the m otion to re ope n.” ). The re fore , the B IA did not e rr in de ny i ng Avoy an’ s m otion on this ba s is. Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 989 (9th C ir. 2010) (upholding de nia l of untim e ly m otion to re ope n

2whe re e vide nc e showe d a c ontinua tion of c ountry

c onditions tha

t we re pre se nt a

t the t im e of the re m ova l he a ring). The re c ord doe s not support Avoy an’ s a rgum e n t tha

t the B IA m a de an im plic it finding tha

t Avoy an’ s a

nd his brother’ s de c la

rations we re not c re dible
. The B IA prope rly

took thea s se rtions in both de c la ra tions into ac c ount whe n it he ld that the e vide nc e did not show a m ate ria l c ha

nge in c onditions. W e a lso re je c t the a sse rtion tha

t the B IA fa ile d to a

pply the a ppropria te le ga l sta

nda rd or c onside r a ll re le va nt issue s in its de c ision. B e c a use Avoy a

n did not de m onstra

te c h ange d c ountry c onditions, a s re quire d to qua lify for the tim e ly

filing e xc e ption unde r § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii), it wa s unne c e ssa ry for the B IA to c onside r whe the r Avoy a n e sta blishe d prima fac iee ligibility for his unde rly ing c la im s . Se e IN S v . Dohe rty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3