MERSEN MARYANYAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 10-73282 (9th Cir. 2015)

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 15 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK MERSEN GEORGIEVICH MARYANYAN; et al., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No.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

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.