Case Name: Siranush Tigranovna MARKOSYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-01
Citations: 333 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 06-71846
Parties: Siranush Tigranovna MARKOSYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 289–289

Head Matter:
Siranush Tigranovna MARKOSYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71846.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 1, 2009.
Audra Rose Behne, Law Office of Audra R. Behne, A Professional Corporation, En-cino, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Holly Smith, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Siranush Tigranovna Markosyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Markosyan's motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed nearly five years after the BIA's November 22, 2000, order dismissing her underlying appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order); Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is 'arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law").
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Markosyan's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.