N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IHR A N SM B ATYAN, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72458 Age n c y No. A096-362-836 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 Nove m

be r 4, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, TASHIM A, a

nd B YB E E, C irc uit Judge s. M ihra n Sm baty an pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls’ de nia l of his m o tion to re ope n. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w the B .I.A.’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n for a

buse of disc re tion. Se e



# FIL ED N OV 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 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).Mohamme d

v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B .I.A. c orre c t ly

de nie d Sm

baty an’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im . It wa s untim e l y

an d Sm bata yn fa ile d to show pre

judic e . Se e 8 C . F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2) (m o tions to re ope n m ust be m a de within nine ty da y s ); Mohamme d , 400 F.3d a

t 793 (ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c l a im s re quire de fic ie nt c onduc t and pre judic e ). Sm baty a n file d his m otion to re ope n six y e ars too la te . He wa s not e ntitle d to e q uita b le tolling where : (1) he did not c onsult a n othe r im m i gration la

wy e r a bout his c a se ; (2) he only

found out a

bout thepossibility

of a m otion to re ope n by c ha nc e ; and (3) he wa i te d a

n undisc lose d

le n gth of tim e , e ve n a fte r disc ove ring the possibility

of re ope ning his c a se , in orde r to ga the r funds to pa

y a la w y e r. Sm baty a n a lso fa ile d to show tha

t the outc om e of his im

m i gration c a s e m ight ha v e be e n diffe re nt but for his a ttorne y ’ s ine ffe c tive ne ss. Sm baty an c ould not point to a

ny a c tua l m ista

ke s in the English de c la

ra tions tha

t he c la i m s his attorne y wa s ine ffe c tive for subm itting. Nor c ould he point to a ny spe c i fic le ga l argum e nts tha

t his a ttorne y fa ile d to ra ise on a

ppe a l . Although Sm

baty an c la im e d his a ttorne y should ha

ve done m ore on a

ppe a l to a tta c k the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

2de te rm i nation, the B .I.A. c orre c tly found tha

t suc h an atta c k would ha

ve be e n unsuc c e s sful e v e n if m ounte d. The B .I.A. a lso c orre c tly

de nie d Sm

baty an’ s m otion to re o pe n ba se d on c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions. At his re

m o va l he aring, Sm

bata yn him s e lf subm itte d substa ntia l e vide nc e of viole nt a nti-ga y se ntim e nt in Arm e nia . Give n this, the B .I.A. did not a

buse its disc re tion in finding tha t a single artic le tha

t sta t e d tha t hostilitie s towa

rds ga y m e n ha d “ inc re a se d” did not show tha t c onditions in Arm e n ia ha d c ha nge d sinc e the re m ova l he aring. In a ddition, the B .I.A. c orre c tly he ld tha t, e ve n if Sm

baty an ha d shown c ha

nge d c o untry

c onditions, the

y c o uld not be m ate ria l whe n Sm

b aty an wa s de nie d re lie f ba s e d on a n a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm i nation tha

t would beuna ffe c te d by

c h ange d c onditions in Arm

e nia . Se e Fe ng Gui Lin v . Holde r , 588 F.3d 981, 986 (9th C ir. 2009) (c h ange s in c ountry c onditions m

ust be m ate ria l). DE NIE D .

3