Grigor Grigoryan v. Jefferson Sessions

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 16, 2018
• Docket: 13-71044
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GRIGOR GRIGORYAN, and LIANA No. 13-71044 UZUNYAN, Agency Nos. A097-871-710 Petitioners, A077-997-564

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 11, 2018**

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

Grigor Grigoryan and Liana Uzunyan, natives and citizens of Armenia,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

summarily dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s decision granting

voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1252. We dismiss

* 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). in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ challenges to the BIA’s 2010

order denying their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture, because this petition for review is not timely as to

that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed no later

than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal); Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d

976, 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (a BIA order denying relief from removal, but remanding

for voluntary departure proceedings, is a final order of removal); Rizo v. Lynch,

810 F.3d 688, 691 (9th Cir. 2016) (clarifying that Abdisalan v. Holder, 774 F.3d

517 (9th Cir. 2014), does not disrupt the Pinto line of cases).

In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s 2013 order

summarily dismissing their appeal. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174,

1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in

waiver).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

2 13-71044