Gabriel Minasyan; Hasmik Minassian; Hakob Minasyan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

11-70743Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit31 de jul. de 2013

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GABRIEL MINASYAN; HASMIK
MINASSIAN; HAKOB MINASYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70743
Agency Nos. A075-648-887
A075-648-888
A075-648-890
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Minasyan, Hasmik Minassian, and Hakob Minasyan, natives and
citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) March 15, 2011, order denying their motion to reconsider and/or reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70743 2
discretion denials of motions to reconsider and motions to reopen. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
In their motion to the BIA, petitioners argued the BIA erred previously by
not considering all the evidence they submitted. The BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider where the motion did not
establish any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(b)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to address petitioners’ contentions related to the BIA’s
2010 decision denying their prior motion to reopen because the petition for review
is untimely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. Mukasey, 533
F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 2008) (an untimely petition for review must be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.