NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN MARKARIAN, No. 18-70282 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-492-336 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 15, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Karen Markarian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Cano- Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review. * 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). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Markarian’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed over 14 years after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Markarian has not established changed country conditions in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening); 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 reject as unsupported by the record Markarian’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the evidence Markarian submitted. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-70282 18-70282 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Karen Markarian v. William Barr 19 July 2019 Agency Unpublished 58eb7c4ce4df22373e128b7304e7e7ab75126b95
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals