The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-70329•Ruben Movsisyan v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General
14-70329Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 19, 2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBEN MOVSISYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70329
Agency No. A099-550-440
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018 **
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Movsisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for 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
an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
* 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). Movsisyan’s request for oral
arguments, raised in his opening brief, is denied.
FILED
JUN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 14-70329
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Movsisyan’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed five years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Movsisyan failed to establish
materially changed country conditions 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); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (petitioner failed to
show evidence was “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening); Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence immaterial in light of
prior adverse credibility determination).
We reject as without merit Movsisyan’s contention that the BIA failed to
consider his evidence and that he was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the
IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
Movsisyan’s request for EAJA fees is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.