NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HRACH GEVORGYAN and AKSANA Nos. 16-72286
SIMONYAN, 17-71768
Petitioners,
Agency Nos. A097-883-901
v. A097-883-902
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Hrach Gevorgyan and Aksana
Simonyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their first (No. 16-72286) and
second (No. 17-71768) motions to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and
review de novo question of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review in No. 16-
72286, and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review in No. 17-
71768.
As to No. 16-72286, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
petitioners’ first motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than four
years after the order of removal became final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)
(motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and
petitioners have not established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence of changed circumstances must be
qualitatively different from previous evidence (internal quotation omitted)).
Contrary to petitioners’ contentions, the BIA did not err in its analysis of
evidence submitted with the motion.
As to No. 17-71768, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
petitioners’ second motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than five
years after the order of removal became final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i),
and petitioners have not established that any statutory or regulatory exception
applies, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).
2 16-72286, 17-71768
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575,
588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions
denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning
behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary disposition (No. 17-
71768, Docket Entry No. 7) is granted because the questions raised by this petition
for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States
v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating standard).
Petitioners’ motion for a stay of removal in 17-71768 is denied as moot. The
temporary stay of removal will terminate upon issuance of the mandate.
In No. 16-72286, PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
In No. 17-71768, PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
3 16-72286, 17-71768