Nektar Zakaryan 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NEKTAR ZAKARYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-72690
07-73438
Agency No. A077-824-597
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Nektar Zakaryan, a native and citizen of
Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing without opinion her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-72690 2
denying her motion to reopen proceedings conducted in absentia and the BIA order
denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to
reopen and to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002),
and review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-
92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Zakaryan’s motion to reopen
because written notice of the hearing was mailed to her counsel of record, see
8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(2), 1229a(b)(5)(A),(C), and the evidence submitted with the
motion to reopen failed to establish Zakaryan acted with the due diligence required
to warrant tolling of the 180-day filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling is available to petitioner who is
prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence
in discovering such circumstances).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zakaryan’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s July 3, 2007, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --