Case Name: Zaven KHACHATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-24
Citations: 472 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 08-71416
Parties: Zaven KHACHATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 764–765

Head Matter:
Zaven KHACHATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71416.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 24, 2012.
Reynold E. Finnegan, II, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Finnegan & Diba A. Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, 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
Zaven Khachatryan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, 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 by denying Khachatryan's second motion to reopen as numerically-barred and untimely where it was filed over four years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Khachatryan failed to establish 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 Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) ("The critical question is . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.