FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARGARIT ELLISON VOSKANYAN, No. 13-70537
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-361-222
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Margarit Ellison Voskanyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Voskanyan’s motion to reopen for failure to comply with the threshold
requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where
Voskanyan failed to allow her former attorneys an adequate opportunity to respond
to the allegations against them, and elements of Voskanyan’s allegations against
her former attorneys were inconsistent with the administrative record. See Reyes v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th Cir. 2004) (no abuse of discretion where alien
failed to establish that he provided former counsel with adequate opportunity to
respond to allegations and ineffectiveness was not plain on face of the record);
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process
challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
Contrary to Voskanyan’s contention, the BIA did not err by declining to
address specific evidence relating to her allegations of ineffectiveness, where the
issue of compliance with Lozada was dispositive. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not
2 13-70537
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the
results they reach.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
To the extent Voskanyan challenges the agency’s prior orders denying her
applications for asylum and related relief, we lack jurisdiction because this petition
is not timely as to those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d
1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Voskanyan’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-70537