Case Name: Eliza VARDUMYAN, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-30
Citations: 540 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 10-71340
Parties: Eliza VARDUMYAN, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 704–704

Head Matter:
Eliza VARDUMYAN, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71340.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Sept. 30, 2013.
Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
Remi Adalemo, Trial, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Eliza Vardumyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vardumyan's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Vardumyan failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) ("The critical question is . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.").
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.