Case Name: Vahe KARAPETYAN; Karo Karapetyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-30
Citations: 398 F. App'x 194
Docket Number: Nos. 09-70752, 09-70754
Parties: Vahe KARAPETYAN; Karo Karapetyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
Vahe KARAPETYAN; Karo Karapetyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 09-70752, 09-70754.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
Sassoun Nalbandian, Law Offices of Sassoun A. Nalbandian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
Ada Elsie Bosque, OIL, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated cases, Vahe and Karo Karapetyan, natives of the former Soviet Union and citizens of Armenia, peti tion for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motions to reopen as untimely where the motions were filed over four years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions).
We reject petitioners' contention that the BIA did not adequately consider the issues raised in the motion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.