Albert Melikian v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 20, 2021
• Docket: 19-73088
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT NERESI MELIKIAN; NARINE No. 19-73088 TER BARSEGHYAN, Agency Nos. A078-371-088 Petitioners, A096-154-743

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Albert Neresi Melikian and Narine Ter Barseghyan, natives and citizens of

Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840

* 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). F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s dispositive

determination that their motion to reopen is both untimely and number-barred and

that petitioners failed to demonstrate an exception to the time limitation for

motions to reopen. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th

Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are

waived). To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision not to reopen sua

sponte, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633

F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011) (no jurisdiction to review the agency’s sua sponte

reopening determination); cf. Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[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.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 19-73088