Case Name: Atto GAMPU; Charlotte Irene Tuuk, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-23
Citations: 472 F. App'x 735
Docket Number: No. 09-71779
Parties: Atto GAMPU; Charlotte Irene Tuuk, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 735–735

Head Matter:
Atto GAMPU; Charlotte Irene Tuuk, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71779.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 23, 2012.
Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.
OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, 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: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, 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
Atto Gampu and Charlotte Irene Tuuk, 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 for an abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). 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 over four years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-89 (9th Cir.2010) (the new evidence must be "qualitatively different" from the evidence at the previous hearing).
In light of our conclusion, we decline to address petitioners' contention that they are members of a disfavored group.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.