Case ID: f-appx_537/html/0774-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fransen Feri WIJAYA, a.k.a. Sen Hwee Oei, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73583.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
    David M. Haghighi, Law Offices of David M. Haghighi, APC Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fransen Feri Wijaya, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider and motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider. Mo hammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In light of our conclusions in Wijaya v. Holder, No. 08-70270 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2011), the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider in order to apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in our decision in Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Wijaya’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Wijaya’s new evidence fails to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010) (stating standards governing motions to reopen).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction over any challenge to the BIA’s decision not to reopen sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.