Hovik Manukyan v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 20 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    HOVIK MANUKYAN,                                  No. 11-73981
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A079-535-301
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 18, 2013 **
    Before:        TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Hovik Manukyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
    reopen removal proceedings and to reissue its previous decision. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the denial 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).
    a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 
    646 F.3d 672
    , 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
    deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Manukyan’s motion to
    reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than six years after his
    removal order became final, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), and Manukyan failed to
    show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
    Avagyan, 
    646 F.3d at 679
     (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is
    prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due
    diligence in discovering such circumstances).
    The BIA sufficiently addressed Manukyan’s contentions related to the non-
    attorney who assisted him. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 990 (9th Cir.
    2010) (the BIA need only “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a
    reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted”
    (internal quotations omitted)).
    In light of this disposition, we do not reach Manukyan’s remaining
    contentions.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                      11-73981
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-73981

Judges: Tallman, Smith, Hurwitz

Filed Date: 6/20/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024