Case Name: Saryana JUNIWATY, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-16
Citations: 626 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 13-71775
Parties: Saryana JUNIWATY, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 626
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Saryana JUNIWATY, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Respondent.
No. 13-71775.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 16, 2015.
Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Colin J. Tucker, 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: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, 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
Saryana Juniwaty, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 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 Juniwaty's untimely motion to reopen where she filed it more than 90 days after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 989-90 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.