YESAYI INDIKUSHYAN and ALBERT INDIKUSHYAN v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YESAYI INDIKUSHYAN and ALBERT
INDIKUSHYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71017
Agency Nos. A097-857-788
A095-665-876
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Yesayi Indikushyan and Albert Indikushyan, citizens of Armenia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their
motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §
* 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
JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71017
1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ arguments, raised for the first
time on appeal, as to changed country conditions and why the proffered evidence
was previously unavailable. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th
Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings
below).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as
untimely, where the motion was filed more than four years after the final order of
removal, and petitioners did not argue that any regulatory exception to the time
limitations applied. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). To the extent petitioners challenge
the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction. See
Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction
to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of
reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --