Suren Avagyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SUREN AVAGYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70136
Agency No. A075-519-291
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.
Suren Avagyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 --

12-70136 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 Avagyan’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than eight years after his
removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Avagyan 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).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Avagyan’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --