Case Name: Susambar NAVASARDYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-09
Citations: 474 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 10-72656
Parties: Susambar NAVASARDYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 569–569

Head Matter:
Susambar NAVASARDYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72656.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 9, 2012.
Ahmed M. Abdallah, Esquire, Hollywood, CA, for Petitioners.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Zoe Jaye Heller, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, 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
Susambar Navasardyan and his family, natives of Iran or Armenia, and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders denying their motion to reopen. 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, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Navasardyan's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost three years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Navasardyan failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638, 640-41 (9th Cir.2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.