Case Name: Vardan Feliksovich GRIGORIAN, aka Vardan Grigorian, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 10-72757
Parties: Vardan Feliksovich GRIGORIAN, aka Vardan Grigorian, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
Vardan Feliksovich GRIGORIAN, aka Vardan Grigorian, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72757
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 04, 2016
Vardan Feliksovich Grigorian, Pro Se.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice,. Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN and M. 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
Vardan Feliksovich Grigorian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Grigorian's motion to reopen where he filed the motion five years after the BIA issued its final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2), and failed to demonstrate that he exercised the due diligence required to obtain equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679.
We do not consider documentation attached to the opening brief that was not part of the administrative record below. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
In light of our disposition, we do not address Grigorian's other contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
¾⅛ disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.