GRIGOR GRIGORYAN V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 13-71044 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GRIGOR GRIGORYAN, and LIANA UZUNYAN, No. 13-71044 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A097-871-710 A077-997-564 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Grigor Grigoryan and Liana Uzunyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s decision granting voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1252. We dismiss * 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). in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ challenges to the BIA’s 2010 order denying their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal); Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (a BIA order denying relief from removal, but remanding for voluntary departure proceedings, is a final order of removal); Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 691 (9th Cir. 2016) (clarifying that Abdisalan v. Holder, 774 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 2014), does not disrupt the Pinto line of cases). In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s 2013 order summarily dismissing their appeal. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 13-71044

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.