Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0874-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Johan LONDAH-EVERT; Joy Jerry Londah, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71249
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 5, 2016
    Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioners George Johan Londah-Evert Joy Jerry Londah
    Lisa Damiano, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

George Johan Londah-Evert and Joy Jerry Londah, 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, 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, where the motion was filed more than twenty-one months after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for an exception to the time limitation for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h), Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (BIA did not abuse its discretion where petitioner failed to produce material evidence). We reject petitioners’ argument that the BIA erred in its analysis.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.