Emma Baghdasaryan 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMMA BAGHDASARYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70050
Agency No. A099-340-506
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Emma Baghdasaryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NED/Research 08-70050 2
of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d
960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in
immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Baghdasaryan’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s November 13, 2007, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
It follows that the denial of Baghdasaryan’s motion to reconsider did not
violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s November 13, 2007, order because
this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS,
315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --