Mersen Georgievich Maryanyan; v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MERSEN GEORGIEVICH
MARYANYAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73282
Agency Nos. A095-403-213
A095-403-214
A095-403-215
A095-403-216
MEMORANDUM*
MERSEN GEORGIEVICH
MARYANYAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71671
Agency Nos. A095-403-213
A095-403-214
A095-403-215
A095-403-216
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 12, 2015
FILED
SEP 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Mersen Georgievich Maryanyan, his wife Marina Nikolayevna Maryanyan,
and their children Aleksandra Mersenovna Maryanyan and Narina Mersenovna
Maryanyan (“Petitioners”), Soviet Union natives and Russian citizens, appeal the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motions to reopen and
reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petitions.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as it
was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Petitioners failed to establish
changed country conditions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2005); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). Also, Petitioners’ due process claim fails as counsel’s
filing a single petition for the family did not constitute ineffective assistance of
counsel. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the reconsideration
motion because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s
prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d
1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
PETITIONS DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --