FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR HOVHANNISYAN, No. 09-70629
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-443-859
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Hovhannisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen. 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, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Hovhannisyan’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hovhannisyan failed to establish
changed country conditions in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to
the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination
rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).
We reject Hovhannisyan’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider his
country conditions evidence and did not adequately explain its decision. See
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91. We also reject Hovhannisyan’s contention that
the BIA’s decision violates due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error for due process violation).
To the extent Hovhannisyan challenges the agency’s underlying adverse
credibility determination, we decline to review those contentions because the court
previously addressed the issue in Hovhannisyan v. Ashcroft, No. 03-73567 (9th
Cir. 2005). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (under the
2 09-70629
‘law of the case doctrine,’ one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider
questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70629