Varduhi Sashoyan v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VARDUHI SASHOYAN, No. 18-71510
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-364-365
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Varduhi Sashoyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an order from
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition.
*
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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Sashoyan’s motion based on
her allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias. See Cuenca v.
Barr, 956 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2020). The BIA’s determination that Sashoyan
failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice to substantiate her ineffective assistance
of counsel and due process claims was not arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.
See Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017). Nor did the BIA err
by determining Sashoyan failed to demonstrate that she acted with the necessary
diligence to warrant equitable tolling and dismissing the motion as untimely. See
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
Sashoyan also contends that her mental health constitutes an exceptional
circumstance such that the BIA erred by declining to sua sponte reopen her
proceedings. We generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to
exercise its sua sponte authority, and Sashoyan does not allege a legal or
constitutional error necessary to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840
F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
2 18-71510