Albert Neresi Melikian; Narine Ter Barseghyan v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT NERESI MELIKIAN; NARINE
TER BARSEGHYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-73088
Agency Nos. A078-371-088
A096-154-743
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Albert Neresi Melikian and Narine Ter Barseghyan, natives and 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. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840
* 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 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-73088
F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s dispositive
determination that their motion to reopen is both untimely and number-barred and
that petitioners failed to demonstrate an exception to the time limitation for
motions to reopen. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th
Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision not to reopen sua
sponte, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633
F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011) (no jurisdiction to review the agency’s sua sponte
reopening determination); cf. Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[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 DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --