Artur Stepanyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARTUR STEPANYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70919
Agency No. A028-065-842
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Artur Stepanyan, a native of the former Soviet Union, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
and reinstate his appeal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-70919 2
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of Stepanyan’s motion, Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Stepanyan’s
motion to reopen filed more than five years after the agency’s final administrative
decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed
within 90 days of the final administrative decision). Stepanyan did not contend in
his motion to reopen that he failed to receive the BIA’s June 8, 2001, order stating
that the notice of appeal had been withdrawn, and the record reflects that the BIA
sent the order to Stepanyan’s address of record.
Stepanyan submitted no evidence to support his claim that his prior attorney
lacked his authority to withdraw the appeal. We therefore reject Stepanyan’s
contention that the BIA acted ultra vires.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --