Armen Margaryan v. Loretta E. Lynch , 643 F. App'x 660 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMEN MARGARYAN, No. 14-73448
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-958-488
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Armen Margaryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a 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).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Margaryan’s motion to
reopen on the grounds that notice was proper, where Margaryan does not claim that
he did not receive notice of the hearing, and the record reflects that he was notified
of the date and location of the next hearing at his November 7, 1996, hearing. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(B) (1995) (notice of hearing shall be given in person or
sent by certified mail); Matter of Grijalva, 21 I. & N. Dec. 27, 37 (BIA 1995).
Margaryan’s contentions that the immigration judge encouraged him not to appear
for the hearing, and that the BIA ignored evidence and arguments are not supported
by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte, and we decline to re-examine our holding in Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002). See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d
818, 824 (9th Cir. 2011) (“No significant changes have occurred since Ekimian that
would allow . . . us to review sua sponte reopening.”).
Margaryan’s request for referral to the court’s mediation program and for
fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act are denied.
2 14-73448
Respondent’s motion to vacate the stay of removal is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73448