Case Name: Hendri PHANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-04
Citations: 667 F. App'x 957
Docket Number: No. 14-71371
Parties: Hendri PHANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 957–958

Head Matter:
Hendri PHANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-71371
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
Filed August 4, 2016
Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner
Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Hendri Phang, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his 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 Pahang's untimely motion to reopen because he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must establish prima facie eligibility for relief sought).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.