Opinion
No. 08-70853.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 9, 2011.
Deborah Karapetian, Law Offices of Deborah L. Karapetian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Kimberly A. Burdge, OIL, Office of Immigration Litigation, Michelle Gorden Latour, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, 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. A075-578-478.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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)(ii); 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).