Opinion
No. 18-70282
07-19-2019
KAREN MARKARIAN, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A075-492-336 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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.
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.