Antonyan v. Holder , 385 F. App'x 688 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANAHIT ANTONYAN, No. 06-70969
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-650-764
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and GWIN, District Judge.***
Anahit Antonyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying her motion to
*
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).
***
The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the
petition.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.
Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2002). We find no such
abuse here. If an alien is aware of her voluntary departure deadline, fails to depart
before that deadline, and then files a motion to reopen, the BIA must deny the
motion. Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008)
(per curiam); see also Matter of Zmijewska, 24 I. & N. Dec. 87 (BIA 2007). This
is true even if counsel represents to the alien that counsel will move for a stay of
voluntary departure and that the alien may remain in the United States safely and
legally. Granados-Oseguera, 546 F.3d at 1013, 1016; Zmijewska, 24 I. & N. Dec.
at 93-95. Antonyan acknowledges that she received a copy of this court’s order
indicating that her stay of voluntary departure would expire upon the issuance of
this court’s mandate, and acknowledges that she did not depart before her period of
voluntary departure expired. The BIA was correct to dismiss her motion to reopen.
PETITION DENIED.
2