Arsen Saribekyan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARSEN SARIBEKYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73655
Agency No. A079-781-457
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arsen Saribekyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales,
FILED
SEP 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73655 2
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Saribekyan’s motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order
of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed
within 90 days of final order of removal), and Saribekyan did not show he was
entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.
2003) (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a
petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as
the petitioner acts with due diligence”), or that changed country conditions
warranted reopening, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --