Case Name: Mayis ASATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-08
Citations: 437 F. App'x 538
Docket Number: No. 09-73602
Parties: Mayis ASATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
Mayis ASATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73602.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 8, 2011.
Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Mayis Asatryan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 588 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Asatryan's motion to reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Asatryan failed to present sufficient 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); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence of changed circumstances insufficient in light of underlying adverse credibility determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.