Astghik Vardanyan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 01 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ASTGHIK NORIKI VARDANYAN; No. 09-73935 ARTYOM KHACHATRYAN, Agency Nos. A096-364-701 Petitioners, A096-364-702 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 24, 2011 ** Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Astghik Noriki Vardanyan and Artyom Khachatryan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, * 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). Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion because they failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, see Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir. 2005), or prima facie eligibility for asylum, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). Petitioners’ contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen is not persuasive. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-73935