Filed: Jun. 03, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-3-2008 Grigorian v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2592 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Grigorian v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1069. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1069 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opin
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-3-2008 Grigorian v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2592 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Grigorian v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1069. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1069 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opini..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-3-2008
Grigorian v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2592
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Grigorian v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1069.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1069
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2592
___________
VARDEN GRIGORIAN,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A24-984-066)
Immigration Judge: Henry S. Dogin
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 2, 2008
Before: BARRY, SMITH and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed:June 3, 2008)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Varden Grigorian is a native and citizen of Armenia. Through counsel, he seeks
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying his motion for
reconsideration. For the following reasons, we will affirm.
Grigorian was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on
October 31, 1980. While living in the United States, he has been convicted of a number
of state crimes.1 He left and re-entered the country again in 2004, applying for admission
as a lawful permanent resident; he was paroled into the country on a temporary permanent
resident card. Soon afterwards, he was issued a Notice to Appear in immigration court on
charges that he was inadmissible for committing acts constituting the essential elements
of a crime involving moral turpitude in violation of INA §§ 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), and for
violating a state law relating to a controlled substance in violation of §
212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).
Although scheduled to appear before an IJ on December 7, 2004, Grigorian did not
show up at the hearing. Consequently, he was ordered removed in absentia. In April
2005, he timely filed a counseled motion to rescind the in absentia order and reopen
proceedings, arguing that exceptional circumstances beyond his control prohibited him
from appearing at the hearing. He explained that he left the country because his son had
fallen seriously ill in Armenia and that, en route back to the United States, he himself fell
seriously ill at the Vienna Airport and could not make his connecting flight. On April 19,
2005, the IJ denied the motion, finding that because he had been placed in removal
proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security, he had no permission in the first
1
In 1988, Grigorian was found guilty of possession of marijuana and use of drug
paraphernalia. In 1995, he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and
petit larceny. In 1998, he pled guilty to petit larceny. In 2001, he was again convicted of
possession of a controlled substance and petit larceny.
2
instance to leave the country. Therefore, the IJ concluded, his delayed return could not be
excused. Grigorian timely filed a counseled appeal of the IJ’s decision. However, shortly
afterwards, his then-attorney, Shirley Tang, filed a letter with the BIA to withdraw the
appeal, because Grigorian had left the United States to return to his family. The BIA
accepted the filing and withdrew his appeal.
On July 14, 2006, through new counsel, Grigorian filed a motion to reinstate his
appeal with the BIA, but that motion was denied on November 28, 2006. He did not
petition this Court for review of that decision. On December 21, 2006, he moved for
reconsideration of that denial, and the BIA denied the motion on April 30, 2007.
Grigorian now seeks review of the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.
We have jurisdiction to review final orders of the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Because Grigorian is removable as a convicted criminal under the INA, see §
1252(a)(2)(C), we review only the colorable legal or constitutional issues that he raises.
See § 1252(a)(2)(D); Cruz v. Attorney General, 452 F.3d 240, 246-47 (3d Cir. 2006). We
review the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion with broad
deference to the Board’s decision. See Borges v. Gonzales,
402 F.3d 398, 404 (3d Cir.
2005); Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft,
325 F.3d 396, 409 (3d Cir. 2003). In order to succeed on
a petition for review, the petitioner must show that the BIA’s discretionary decision was
arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. See Tipu v. INS,
20 F.3d 580, 582 (3d Cir. 1994).
As the only ruling that Grigorian appeals is the BIA’s April 30, 2007 decision, we review
3
only that decision.
The BIA denied Grigorian’s motion to reconsider because he failed to identify any
error of law or fact suggesting that its prior decision was defective. Moreover, it
declined to exercise its discretion to consider, sua sponte, Grigorian’s motion.2 Although
Grigorian insists that the BIA’s decision was erroneous, his motion does nothing more
than reiterate the arguments underlying his motion to reinstate the appeal. To the extent
that we would have jurisdiction to review these arguments at all, they should have been
raised on a petition for review of the BIA’s November 28, 2006 denial of his motion to
reinstate his appeal, not in the present petition for review of the BIA’s denial of his
motion for reconsideration.
Because Gregorian does not show that the BIA’s decision denying his motion for
reconsideration was arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law, see id., we will affirm the
BIA’s order.
2
The BIA noted that Grigorian put forth no potentially meritorious claims for
reopening the proceedings, including, for example, allegations that his attorney was
ineffective. See Lu v. Ashcroft, 259 F.3d 127, 132-34 (3d Cir. 2001).
4
