Hovhanes Karabekian v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOVHANES KARABEKIAN, No. 13-71698
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-212-841
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hovhanes Karabekian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse 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).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional
claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Karabekian’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where Karabekian filed his motion more than 16 years after the
applicable regulatory deadline of September 30, 1996, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)
(“A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final
administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, or on or before
September 30, 1996, whichever is later.”), and he failed to establish the due
diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679-80 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an
alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception,
fraud or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such
circumstances).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Karabekian’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71698