SEMEN ABRAMIAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-74033 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 20 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEMEN ABRAMIAN, AKA Semen Arasesovich Abramyan and ELEONARA ABRAMIAN, AKA Eleonora Abramyan, No. 13-74033 Agency Nos. A070-947-920 A070-947-921 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Semen Abramian and Eleonara Abramian, citizens of Georgia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their motion to reopen * 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). deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely, where they filed the motion fifteen years after their final deportation order and after September 30, 1996, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”). In light of this disposition, we do not address petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding due process and compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-74033

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.