Samvel Avetisyan, a.k.a. Samuel Avetisyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMVEL AVETISYAN, a.k.a. Samuel
Avetisyan,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73896
Agency No. A075-578-478
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Samvel Avetisyan, a native of Georgia and citizen of Armenia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi
FILED
DEC 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Avetisyan’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to present sufficient evidence
of changed circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time and numerical limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence must be “qualitatively
different” from the evidence presented at the previous hearing); see also Toufighi
v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to establish
prima facie eligibility for relief and discussing consequences of lack of credibility).
We reject Avetisyan’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his evidence.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to not reopen
removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818,
823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-73896 2

-- 2 of 2 --