Case Name: Lamara POGOSIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-14
Citations: 476 F. App'x 128
Docket Number: No. 10-70115
Parties: Lamara POGOSIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 476
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
Lamara POGOSIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70115.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
Filed Aug. 14, 2012.
Areg Kazaryan, Law offices of Areg Ka-zaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, William Clark Min-ick, Oil, Janice Kay Redfern, Esquire, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lamara Pogosian, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pogosian's motion to reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2006) (prima facie eligibility is demonstrated by a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief are met); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (the country report did not support the likelihood that circumstances would arise that would lead to the petitioner's persecution).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).