Mkrtumyam v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Mkrtumyam v. Mukasey

302 F. App'x 629

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 2008

DocketNo. 06-73640

StatusPublished

This text of 302 F. App'x 629 (Mkrtumyam 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

Mkrtumyam v. Mukasey, 302 F. App'x 629 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Arthur Shavarsh Mkrtumyam, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Ap[630]*630peals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We determine our jurisdiction de novo. Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir.2004). We dismiss the petition for review.

Mkrtumyam concedes that his motion to reopen removal proceedings was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) because it was filed more than ninety days after the BIA’s decision on December 10, 2003. He contends, however, that the BIA should have reopened his case sua sponte in light of the newly discovered evidence submitted with the motion. We lack jurisdiction to evaluate Mkrtumyam’s contention that the BIA should have reopened his case sua sponte. See Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

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

**

Arthur Shavarsh Mkrtumyam, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Ap[630]*630peals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We determine our jurisdiction de novo. Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir.2004). We dismiss the petition for review.

Mkrtumyam concedes that his motion to reopen removal proceedings was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) because it was filed more than ninety days after the BIA’s decision on December 10, 2003. He contends, however, that the BIA should have reopened his case sua sponte in light of the newly discovered evidence submitted with the motion. We lack jurisdiction to evaluate Mkrtumyam’s contention that the BIA should have reopened his case sua sponte. See Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

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)

302 F. App'x 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mkrtumyam-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack