Ophelia Eduardovna Abramian v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OPHELIA EDUARDOVNA
ABRAMIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70628
Agency No. A075-620-422
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 29, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Ophelia Eduardovna Abramian, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen proceedings. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of the
FILED
AUG 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

motion to reopen, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and
we deny the petition for review.
Abramian has waived any issues relating to asylum, the Convention Against
Torture, and due process. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996).
We have jurisdiction to review Abramian’s contention that the BIA abused
its discretion by denying her motion to reopen proceedings because of changed
country circumstances. See Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1075-76 (9th
Cir. 2008).
We hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Abramian’s
motion to reopen as untimely because Abramian filed the motion more than 90
days after the BIA issued its final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and she
failed to present the material evidence of changed circumstances in Georgia that
was required to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing
motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that petitioner did not qualify for
exception to time limit because she failed to submit new evidence that was
qualitatively different from evidence presented at original hearing and that had
individualized relevancy). Abramian provided no evidence of an individualized
11-70628 2

-- 2 of 3 --

risk of persecution, and the evidence she submitted therefore is not material to a
claim that she is entitled to withholding of removal under a disfavored group
theory. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th Cir. 2009). She also did
not provide evidence of a pattern and practice of persecution. See id. at 1060-62
(holding that widespread discrimination was insufficient to show pattern and
practice of persecution even where there were some incidents of persecution).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-70628 3

-- 3 of 3 --