Tigran Hovhannisyan v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 444 F. App'x 931 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUL 22 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TIGRAN HOVHANNISYAN,                             No. 10-70518
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A095-308-867
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted July 12, 2011 **
    Before:        SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    Tigran Hovhannisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
    reopen proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is
    governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. Holder, 
    321 F.3d 889
    , 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and
    we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hovhannisyan’s motion to
    reopen where the motion was filed seven months after the BIA’s final order of
    removal, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90
    days of a final administrative order), and Hovhannisyan did not establish grounds
    for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 
    321 F.3d at 897
    (equitable tolling is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because
    of deception, fraud, or error”). In light of our holding, we need not reach the
    merits of Hovhannisyan’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
    We lack jurisdiction to consider Hovhannisyan’s challenges to the agency’s
    underlying orders because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders.
    See Singh v. INS, 
    315 F.3d 1186
    , 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                      10-70518
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-70518

Citation Numbers: 444 F. App'x 931

Judges: Alarcon, Leavy, Schroeder

Filed Date: 7/22/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023