Boghos Jansezian v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Boghos Jansezian v. Eric Holder, Jr.

516 F. App'x 633

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 2013

Docket11-71107

StatusUnpublished

This text of 516 F. App'x 633 (Boghos Jansezian v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boghos Jansezian v. Eric Holder, Jr., 516 F. App'x 633 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Boghos Ohannes Jansezian, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jansezian’s untimely motion to reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (“vague and conclusory allegations” insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility); Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1999) (“[T]he evidence [petitioner] introduced was too general to demonstrate a well-founded fear that [petitioner] would personally be persecuted.”)

We do not consider the new evidence Jansezian referenced in his opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record). Accordingly, we deny as unnecessary the government’s motion to strike.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Boghos Ohannes Jansezian, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jansezian’s untimely motion to reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (“vague and conclusory allegations” insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility); Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1999) (“[T]he evidence [petitioner] introduced was too general to demonstrate a well-founded fear that [petitioner] would personally be persecuted.”)

We do not consider the new evidence Jansezian referenced in his opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record). Accordingly, we deny as unnecessary the government’s motion to strike.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 F. App'x 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boghos-jansezian-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack