Erzrumyan v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Erzrumyan v. Mukasey

312 F. App'x 847

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

DocketNo. 06-72343

StatusPublished

This text of 312 F. App'x 847 (Erzrumyan v. Mukasey) 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

Erzrumyan v. Mukasey, 312 F. App'x 847 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Migran Nshanovi Erzrumyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Erzrumyan’s motion to reopen. Erzrumyan does not dispute that he received adequate notice pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), and he failed to establish that his former counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was an “exceptional circumstance” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l), cf. Lo, 341 F.3d at 937-38 (sufficient compliance with the requirements of Matter of Loza-da, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where counsel took responsibility for employee’s mistake, and petitioners included this explanation in their affidavits, along with an affidavit from counsel).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Migran Nshanovi Erzrumyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Erzrumyan’s motion to reopen. Erzrumyan does not dispute that he received adequate notice pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), and he failed to establish that his former counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was an “exceptional circumstance” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l), cf. Lo, 341 F.3d at 937-38 (sufficient compliance with the requirements of Matter of Loza-da, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where counsel took responsibility for employee’s mistake, and petitioners included this explanation in their affidavits, along with an affidavit from counsel).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 F. App'x 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erzrumyan-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack