United States v. 2020-09-15 | 15-71130 | OPHELIA ABRAMIAN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OPHELIA EDUARDOVNA ABRAMIAN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-71130

Agency No. A075-620-422

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, 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 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. Perez v.
Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

*
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

SEP 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 15-71130
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Abramian’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 11 years after the order of
removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Abramian has not
established changed country conditions in Georgia to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively
different” to warrant reopening); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.
2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that
conditions in country of nationality had changed).
On September 16, 2015, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.