Ninel Grigoryan; Misak Arakelyan 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).
KV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NINEL GRIGORYAN; MISAK
ARAKELYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70721
Agency Nos. A095-876-648
A095-876-649
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.
Ninel Grigoryan and her husband, Misak Arakelyan, natives and citizens of
Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KV/Research 07-70721 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383
F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen where
the petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Mendez-Gutierrez
v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006) (prima facie eligibility is
established “where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory
requirements for relief have been satisfied”). We reject the petitioners’ contention
that the BIA did not adequately explain its reasons for denying the motion. See
Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430-31 (9th Cir. 1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --