Lusine Taslakhchyan, a.k.a. Lusine Gevorg Taslakhchyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUSINE TASLAKHCHYAN, a.k.a.
Lusine Gevorg Taslakhchyan,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72400
Agency No. A078-642-306
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Lusine Taslakhchyan, a native of the former Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics and a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72400 2
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo due
process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Taslakhchyan’s motion to
reopen as untimely, because her motion was filed nearly two years after the BIA’s
January 30, 2008, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), did not establish an exception
to the filing deadline for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3), and did
not establish grounds for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-80 (equitable tolling available where petitioner is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner
acts with due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to review Taslakhchyan’s contention that her former
counsel did not properly raise her lack of notice claim because she failed to raise
that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the
agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --