Opinion
No. 06-72343.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 30, 2008.
Reynold E. Finnegan, Esquire, Finnegan Diba A. Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Kendra S. McNally, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A071-179-651.
Before: WALLACE, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Migran Nshanovi Erzrumyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Erzrumyan's motion to reopen. Erzrumyan does not dispute that he received adequate notice pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), and he failed to establish, that his former counsel's alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was an "exceptional circumstance" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1), cf. Lo, 341 F.3d at 937-38 (sufficient compliance with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where counsel took responsibility for employee's mistake, and petitioners included this explanation in their affidavits, along with an affidavit from counsel).