Ogmertsian v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Ogmertsian v. Ashcroft

75 F. App'x 640

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 2003

DocketNo. 02-71416; Agency No. A70-958-473

StatusPublished

This text of 75 F. App'x 640 (Ogmertsian v. Ashcroft) 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

Ogmertsian v. Ashcroft, 75 F. App'x 640 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Maria Ogmertsian, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions pro se for review of [641]*641the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen deportation proceedings to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(b)(2)(i); Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1029-30 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the [641]*641courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Maria Ogmertsian, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions pro se for review of [641]*641the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen deportation proceedings to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(b)(2)(i); Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1029-30 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the [641]*641courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 F. App'x 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogmertsian-v-ashcroft-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack