Susambar Navasardyan; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SUSAMBAR NAVASARDYAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72656
Agency Nos. A096-364-703
A096-364-704
A096-364-705
A096-364-706
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Susambar Navasardyan and his family, natives of Iran or Armenia, and
citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72656 2
reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Navasardyan’s motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost three years after the BIA’s
final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Navasardyan failed to present
material evidence of changed circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing motions to reopen, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638, 640-41 (9th
Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --