Gabriel Minasyan; Hasmik Minassian; Hakob Minasyan v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL MINASYAN; HASMIK
MINASSIAN; HAKOB MINASYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70862
Agency Nos. A075-648-887
A075-648-888
A075-648-890
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel, Hasmik, and Hakob Minasyan, natives and citizens of Armenia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order of
February 19, 2015, denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8
* 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
MAY 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-70862
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, which was not
supported as required by the governing regulation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)
(“A motion to reopen . . . shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary
material.”); see also INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 143 (1981) (enforcing a prior
regulation that required motions to reopen to be supported by affidavits or other
evidentiary material). Petitioners offer no support for their contention that the BIA
should have excused them from this requirement because they filed their motion to
reopen pro se.
The record does not support Petitioners’ contention that the BIA abused its
discretion by failing to “consider the most recent relevant country condition profile
published by the United States State Department” under Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d
1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2002), because they filed their motion pro se. That case is
inapplicable for several reasons, including that Petitioners failed to identify
materially changed circumstances that any such profile would demonstrate.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --