GABRIEL MINASYAN V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-70743 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUL 31 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL MINASYAN; HASMIK MINASSIAN; HAKOB MINASYAN, No. 11-70743 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A075-648-887 A075-648-888 A075-648-890 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 24, 2013 ** Before: ALARCÃ N, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Gabriel Minasyan, Hasmik Minassian, and Hakob Minasyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) March 15, 2011, order denying their motion to reconsider and/or reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of * 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). discretion denials of motions to reconsider and motions to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In their motion to the BIA, petitioners argued the BIA erred previously by not considering all the evidence they submitted. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reconsider where the motion did not establish any error of fact or law in the BIA s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). We lack jurisdiction to address petitioners contentions related to the BIA s 2010 decision denying their prior motion to reopen because the petition for review is untimely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 2008) (an untimely petition for review must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 11-70743

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.