Court Opinion

ID: 3065656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-14 22:36:24.281702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:53.400623
License: Public Domain

FILED
                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          SEP 30 2013

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIZA VARDUMYAN,                                   No. 10-71340

               Petitioners,                        Agency Nos. A078-245-819

  v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,             MEMORANDUM *

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted September 24, 2013 **

Before:        RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

       Eliza Vardumyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, 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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v.

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vardumyan’s motion to

reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final

order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Vardumyan failed to present material

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); 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.

                                           2                                    10-71340