Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0508-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Goenawan BOEDIJONO; Meyke Margaretha, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70805.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 20, 2014.
    Jack Herzig, Esquire, Law Offices of Jack Herzig, Wyncote, PA, for Petitioners.
    John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, OIL, 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: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. F.App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Ren’s request for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Goenawan Boedijono and Meyke Mar-garetha, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to .reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and they failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (new evidence “must'be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence presented at the previous hearing”).

We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s analysis was inadequate or incomplete. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”).

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