Zaven Khachatryan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ZAVEN KHACHATRYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71416
Agency No. A076-706-203
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Zaven Khachatryan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second
motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an
abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and
FILED
APR 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71416 2
we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Khachatryan’s second
motion to reopen as numerically-barred and untimely where it was filed over four
years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Khachatryan
failed to establish changed circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that
a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a
well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --