Case ID: f-appx_222/html/0661-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David MANULLANG; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74431.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 27, 2007.
    Kaaren L. Barr, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Susan M. Harrison, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Manullang, and his wife, Rachmanita Rachmanita, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because they did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Indonesia, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated their due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (“To prevail on a due process challenge ... [a petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice.”).

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