United States v. 2020-07-16 | 17-71834 | ASHOT AVOYAN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ASHOT AVOYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71834
Agency No. A071-069-916
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2020
**
Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Ashot Avoyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, seeks review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
JUL 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* *
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Yeghiazaryan v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Avoyan’s second, untimely
motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where he failed to qualify for an
exception to the time and number limitations, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). A motion
to reopen may be filed any time for purposes of seeking asylum, withholding of
removal, or CAT relief because of changed country conditions, if supported by
evidence that is “material and was not available and could not have been
discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” Id.; see Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d
604, 607–09 (9th Cir. 2014).
Avoyan’s evidence did not satisfy this requirement, where it did not
establish material, changed circumstances in Armenia since Avoyan’s final hearing
on August 29, 2011. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016)
(“[T]he changed country conditions exception is concerned with two points in
time: the circumstances of the country at the time of the petitioner’s previous
hearing, and those at the time of the motion to reopen.”). Therefore, the BIA did
not err in denying Avoyan’s motion on this basis. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding denial of untimely motion to reopen
2

where evidence showed a continuation of country conditions that were present at
the time of the removal hearing).
The record does not support Avoyan’s argument that the BIA made an
implicit finding that Avoyan’s and his brother’s declarations were not credible.
The BIA properly took the assertions in both declarations into account when it held
that the evidence did not show a material change in conditions. We also reject the
assertion that the BIA failed to apply the appropriate legal standard or consider all
relevant issues in its decision. Because Avoyan did not demonstrate changed
country conditions, as required to qualify for the timely filing exception under §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii), it was unnecessary for the BIA to consider whether Avoyan
established prima facie eligibility for his underlying claims. See INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3