Case Name: Aram SARGSYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-05
Citations: 292 F. App'x 553
Docket Number: Nos. 05-75713, 07-70685
Parties: Aram SARGSYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 553–554

Head Matter:
Aram SARGSYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 05-75713, 07-70685.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 5, 2008.
P.C. Barshev, Sergei Shevchenko, Esq., Barshev, P.C., Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Greg D. Mack, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Aram Sargsyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), each denying a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribar-ria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the first motion to reopen for failure to comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), because Sargsyan did not notify his prior counsel of the allegations against him or file a complaint with the appropriate disciplinary authority. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 900.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the second motion to reopen as time- and number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the BIA's final order and movant is limited to one such motion). Equitable tolling was not warranted because Sargsyan offered no explanation for why the new facts and evidence included with his second motion could not have been submitted with his first motion. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling may be warranted when movant is prevented from filing motion due to deception, fraud, or error).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.