Arsen Vardanyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARSEN VARDANYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74953
Agency No. A079-604-957
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Arsen Vardanyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74953 2
a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vardanyan’s motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s
September 2, 2004, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must
generally be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Vardanyan failed to
establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner
acts with due diligence”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --