SUREN AVAGYAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73350 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 5 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUREN AVAGYAN, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73350 Agency No. A075-519-291 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Suren Avagyan, 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 abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. * 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). Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Avagyan’s motion to reopen as it was untimely and number-barred where he filed his motion more than ten years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Avagyan failed to establish his motion fell within a regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the BIA can deny a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought). Avagyan’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard is not supported. Avagyan’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his evidence is also not supported by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73350

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.