FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR SOGOYAN, No. 10-70859
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-735-861
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Arthur Sogoyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based
on ineffective assistance of counsel and changed circumstances arising in the
country of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
*
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).
novo questions of law and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997-99 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sogoyan’s motion to reopen
as untimely because it was filed more than six months after the final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Sogoyan did not establish that he acted
with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321
F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling available where “a petitioner is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner
acts with due diligence”). Sogoyan did not establish eligibility for any of the
regulatory exceptions to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); see also
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence of changed
circumstances in the country of removal lacks the requisite materiality where it
simply recounts generalized conditions); cf. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 944
(9th Cir. 2004).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Sogoyan’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-70859