Suren Avagyan v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUREN AVAGYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73350
Agency No. A075-519-291
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 5 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73350
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Avagyan’s motion to reopen
as it was untimely and number-barred where he filed his motion more than ten
years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Avagyan failed
to establish his motion fell within a regulatory exception to the time and number
limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the BIA can deny a
motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for failure to establish
prima facie eligibility for the relief sought). Avagyan’s contention that the BIA
applied an incorrect legal standard is not supported. Avagyan’s contention that
the BIA failed to consider his evidence is also not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --