Lamara Pogosian 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LAMARA POGOSIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70115
Agency No. A076-357-417
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70115 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --