Varduhi Hovakimyan; Milena Hovsepyan; Artuom Hovsepyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VARDUHI HOVAKIMYAN; MILENA
HOVSEPYAN; ARTUOM
HOVSEPYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71895
Agency Nos. A075-763-493
A075-763-495
A075-763-496
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Varduhi Hovakimyan and family, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their
motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71895 2
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions
of law. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011) . We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the motion to reopen was filed nearly thirteen months after the
BIA’s August 11, 2005, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final
administrative order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable
tolling, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling available “when a
petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as
the petitioner acts with due diligence”). It follows that petitioners’ due process
claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --