YESAYI INDIKUSHYAN V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-71017 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YESAYI INDIKUSHYAN and ALBERT INDIKUSHYAN, No. 17-71017 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A097-857-788 A095-665-876 MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Yesayi Indikushyan and Albert Indikushyan, 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. § * 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). 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ arguments, raised for the first time on appeal, as to changed country conditions and why the proffered evidence was previously unavailable. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than four years after the final order of removal, and petitioners did not argue that any regulatory exception to the time limitations applied. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[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 DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 17-71017

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.