From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vartanian v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 1, 2007
223 F. App'x 676 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-72713.

Submitted February 20, 2007.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 1, 2007.

Margarita Mkrtchyan, Inman and Associates, P.C., Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Home-land Security, Alicia Villarreal, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, 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 Nos. A74-787-336, A74-787-337, A74-353-016, A74-353-017.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Baghrat Vartanian, his wife Ruzanna Vartanian, and children Ashken and Albert Vartanian, natives and citizens of Azerbaijan, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen deportation proceedings on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted withing its discretion when it denied the Vartanians' motion as untimely because it was filed over two years after the BIA's final order of removal and nearly six months after the Vartanians consulted with new counsel. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision was rendered); Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899 (explaining that in cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel, the filing deadline may be tolled until the petitioner meets with new counsel to discuss his file).

In light of this holding, we do not reach the Vartanians' remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Vartanian v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 1, 2007
223 F. App'x 676 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Vartanian v. Gonzales

Case Details

Full title:Baghrat VARTANIAN; Ruzanna Vartanian; Ashken Vartanian; Albert Vartanian…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 1, 2007

Citations

223 F. App'x 676 (9th Cir. 2007)