Vahe Karapetyan; Karo Karapetyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VAHE KARAPETYAN;
KARO KARAPETYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 09-70752
09-70754
Agency Nos. A079-276-884
A079-276-885
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.
In these consolidated cases, Vahe and Karo Karapetyan, natives of the
former Soviet Union and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motions to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70752 / 09-70754 2
discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to
reopen as untimely where the motions were filed over four years after the BIA’s
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed
circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,
996 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in
order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not adequately consider
the issues raised in the motion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --