ALBERT MELIKIAN V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 19-73088 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 20 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERT NERESI MELIKIAN; NARINE TER BARSEGHYAN, No. 19-73088 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A078-371-088 A096-154-743 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Albert Neresi Melikian and Narine Ter Barseghyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 * 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). F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s dispositive determination that their motion to reopen is both untimely and number-barred and that petitioners failed to demonstrate an exception to the time limitation for motions to reopen. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision not to reopen sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011) (no jurisdiction to review the agency’s sua sponte reopening determination); cf. Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 19-73088

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.