NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RUZANNA KARAPETYAN, No. 13-74051
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-534-677
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ruzanna Karapetyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of
Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, and 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).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Karapetyan’s
motion to reopen based on the alleged ineffective assistance of her prior counsel,
where she filed the motion over five years after her final order of removal, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to show she exercised the due diligence necessary
to discover her attorney’s ineffectiveness and, consequently, warrant equitable
tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir.
2011) (diligence involves whether a reasonable person “would suspect the specific
fraud” and whether petitioner took “reasonable steps to investigate [any] suspected
fraud”).
Karapetyan’s contention that the BIA, in noting the immigration judge’s
adverse credibility determination, made its own adverse credibility determination
in denying the motion is not supported by the record. Cf. Ghadessi v. INS, 797
F.2d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1986).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Karapetyan’s due process
contention.
The government’s motion to lift the temporary abeyance is denied as moot,
2 13-74051
because it has expired.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74051