Karine Movsesyan v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARINE MOVSESYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73887
Agency No. A095-294-250
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Karine Movsesyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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. Najmabadi v.
* 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).
FILED
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73887
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Movsesyan’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than four years after the
BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Movsesyan failed to establish a
material change in circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (evidence must be material);
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence immaterial in
light of prior adverse credibility determination). We reject Movsesyan’s
contentions that the BIA failed to consider arguments.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --