Jacques Garabet Maksoudian v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACQUES GARABET MAKSOUDIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72059
Agency No. A094-211-943
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Jacques Garabet Maksoudian, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS,
FILED
JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72059 2
345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and grant in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Maksoudian’s motion to
reopen to apply for asylum and withholding because it was untimely and number-
barred, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2), and Maksoudian failed to establish changed
country conditions in Lebanon to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
and number limitations, 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.”).
Because the BIA failed to address Maksoudian’s CAT claim in denying the
motion to reopen, we remand for the BIA to determine if reopening is warranted.
See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The BIA [is] not
free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --