Babken Grigoryan v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 471 F. App'x 738 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAR 13 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BABKEN GRIGORYAN,                                No. 08-74115
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A099-442-423
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 6, 2012 **
    Before:        B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    Babken Grigoryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. Our
    jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo questions of law,
    *
    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).
    including questions pertaining to our own jurisdiction. Tamang v. Holder, 
    598 F.3d 1083
    , 1088 (9th Cir. 2010); Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 
    361 F.3d 1219
    , 1221
    (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
    We lack jurisdiction to review Grigoryan’s contention that his untimely
    asylum application is excused by extraordinary circumstances based on his
    depression and that he filed his asylum application within a reasonable period of
    time because it would require us to resolve disputed facts regarding the severity
    and duration of his illness. See Tamang, 
    598 F.3d at 1088-89
     (the court’s
    jurisdiction extends to questions involving the application of law to undisputed
    facts).
    We also lack jurisdiction to reach Grigoryan’s unexhausted contention that
    the IJ failed in her duty to develop the record. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 
    358 F.3d 674
    , 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
    Grigoryan’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review is
    belied by the record.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
    2                                   08-74115
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-74115

Citation Numbers: 471 F. App'x 738

Judges: Fletcher, Reinhardt, Tashima

Filed Date: 3/13/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024