Ruben Tamrazyan v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBEN TAMRAZYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70192
Agency No. A097-609-452
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Tamrazyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo
* 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
APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 11-70192
questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Tamrazyan’s contention that the BIA erroneously concluded it lacked
authority to reopen sua sponte is not supported by the record, where the BIA cited
to Matter of Compean, 25 I. & N. Dec. 1 (AG 2009), indicating that it had the
discretion to consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on conduct
that occurred after a final order of removal. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552
F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (the agency applies the correct legal standard where
it expressly cites and applies relevant case law in rendering its decision). To the
extent Tamrazyan challenges the BIA’s decision not to exercise its discretion, we
lack jurisdiction to review that determination. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (court
has jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the
limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning for legal or constitutional error; the
court has no jurisdiction to review a sua sponte determination made against the
correct legal background).
We deny Tamrazyan’s request to recall the mandate and reinstate his prior
petition for review, Tamrazyan v. Holder, Case No. 07-71144, where he does not
demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to warrant exercise of our sua sponte

-- 2 of 3 --

3 11-70192
authority. See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 549-50 (1998) (power to
recall a mandate can be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances); Nevis v.
Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996) (declining to recall a mandate where
there was no claim that the prior decision was erroneous, but to present new
claims).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --