Case Name: Ninel GRIGORYAN; Misak Arakelyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 358 F. App'x 936
Docket Number: No. 07-70721
Parties: Ninel GRIGORYAN; Misak Arakelyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 936–937

Head Matter:
Ninel GRIGORYAN; Misak Arakelyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70721.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
John D. Friedman, Friedman & Ikon, Tarzana, CA, for Petitioners.
Terri Leon-Benner, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ninel Grigoryan and her husband, Misak Arakelyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Larar-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen where the petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2006) (prima facie eligibility is established "where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied"). We reject the petitioners' contention that the BIA did not adequately explain its reasons for denying the motion. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430-31 (9th Cir.1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.