Karen Markarian v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAREN MARKARIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70282
Agency No. A075-492-336
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Karen Markarian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-
Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
* 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
JUL 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-70282
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Markarian’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed over 14 years after the order of removal
became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Markarian has not established
changed country conditions in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to
the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant
reopening); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring
movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in
country of nationality had changed).
We reject as unsupported by the record Markarian’s contention that the BIA
abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the evidence Markarian submitted.
See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (agency need not write an exegesis on every
contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner
did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --