SEMEN ABRAMIAN, AKA Semen Arasesovich Abramyan v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEMEN ABRAMIAN, AKA Semen
Arasesovich Abramyan and ELEONARA
ABRAMIAN, AKA Eleonora Abramyan,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74033
Agency Nos. A070-947-920
A070-947-921
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Semen Abramian and Eleonara Abramian, citizens of Georgia, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their motion to reopen
FILED
OCT 20 2015
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 2 --

deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely, where they filed the motion fifteen years after their final
deportation order and after September 30, 1996, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and
failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing
deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable
tolling is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of
deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in
discovering the deception, fraud, or error”).
In light of this disposition, we do not address petitioners’ remaining
contentions regarding due process and compliance with the procedural
requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-74033 2

-- 2 of 2 --