Mamikon Meliksetyan v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAMIKON MELIKSETYAN, No. 12-71987
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-511-209
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mamikon Meliksetyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reconsider
and motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of motions 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).
reopen and reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002),
and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Meliksetyan’s motion to
reconsider, because Meliksetyan failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Further, we reject
Meliksetyan’s contentions that the BIA failed to adequately review the evidence,
see Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2009) (BIA adequately
considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). We lack
jurisdiction to consider Meliksetyan’s contentions regarding the agency’s adverse
credibility determination, because he did not raise them to the agency in the motion
to reconsider. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no
jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Meliksetyan’s fourth
motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed
over five years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he
failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA may
2 12-71987
deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish materially changed country
conditions).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-71987