FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VAHE KHUDAVERDYAN, No. 09-70751
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-646-710
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Vahe Khudaverdyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’(“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
denial of a motion to reopen, 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 in denying Khudaverdyan’s motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than three years after the
BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Khudaverdyan failed to
establish changed circumstances 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 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed country
conditions); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of
future harm too speculative).
Contrary to Khudaverdyan’s contention, the BIA adequately considered the
evidence presented with the motion to reopen. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91.
Khudaverdyan’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his claim independently
from his father’s is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70751