Hovik Manukyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HOVIK MANUKYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73981
Agency No. A079-535-301
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Hovik Manukyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings and to reissue its previous decision. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73981 2
a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Manukyan’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than six years after his
removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Manukyan failed to
show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due
diligence in discovering such circumstances).
The BIA sufficiently addressed Manukyan’s contentions related to the non-
attorney who assisted him. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010) (the BIA need only “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a
reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted”
(internal quotations omitted)).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Manukyan’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --