Samvel Avetisyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

420 F. App'x 685
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 9, 2011
Docket08-70853
StatusUnpublished

This text of 420 F. App'x 685 (Samvel Avetisyan v. Eric H. 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
Samvel Avetisyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 420 F. App'x 685 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Samvel Avetisyan, a native of Georgia and citizen of Armenia, 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Avetisyan’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Avetisyan failed to establish changed circumstances in Armenia or Georgia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed).

We decline to reconsider Avetisyan’s challenge to the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination because this court already decided the issue in Avetisyan v. Gonzales, 235 Fed.Appx. 607 (9th Cir.2007); see also Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (explaining that under the ‘law of the case doctrine,’ one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).

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

Related

Toufighi v. Mukasey
538 F.3d 988 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Avetisyan v. Gonzales
235 F. App'x 607 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
420 F. App'x 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samvel-avetisyan-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2011.