Case Name: Thiela Suhendra SUGIARTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-20
Citations: 529 F. App'x 869
Docket Number: No. 11-72055
Parties: Thiela Suhendra SUGIARTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 869–869

Head Matter:
Thiela Suhendra SUGIARTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72055.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 20, 2013.
David B. Gardner, Allisson Ramirez, Law Offices of David B. Gardner, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Justin Robert Markel, Enitan Otunla, 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: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thiela Suhendra Sugiarto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her 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). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sugiarto's untimely motion to reopen where the motion was filed almost three years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Sugiarto failed to establish changed circumstances in Indonesia material to her claim, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring circumstances to have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of persecution). We reject Sugiarto's contention that the BIA failed to consider her evidence.
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen in light of Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010). See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (petitioner must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th Cir.2009) (even under disfavored group analysis, some evidence of individualized risk is necessary for the petitioner to succeed).
We reject Sugiarto's contention that her due process rights were violated because the BIA denied her motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). We reject Sugiarto's contention that the BIA erred by failing to address her pattern or practice of persecution claim.
Finally, we deny Sugiarto's request for judicial notice, set forth in her reply brief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.