Babken Grigoryan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BABKEN GRIGORYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74115
Agency No. A099-442-423
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Babken Grigoryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
FILED
MAR 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74115 2
including questions pertaining to our own jurisdiction. Tamang v. Holder, 598
F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010); Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1221
(9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction to review Grigoryan’s contention that his untimely
asylum application is excused by extraordinary circumstances based on his
depression and that he filed his asylum application within a reasonable period of
time because it would require us to resolve disputed facts regarding the severity
and duration of his illness. See Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1088-89 (the court’s
jurisdiction extends to questions involving the application of law to undisputed
facts).
We also lack jurisdiction to reach Grigoryan’s unexhausted contention that
the IJ failed in her duty to develop the record. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Grigoryan’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review is
belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --