Case Name: Rino Mulia YUSUF; Neneng Yulia, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-23
Citations: 233 F. App'x 668
Docket Number: No. 05-75186
Parties: Rino Mulia YUSUF; Neneng Yulia, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 233
Pages: 668–669

Head Matter:
Rino Mulia YUSUF; Neneng Yulia, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75186.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2007.
Filed May 23, 2007.
Kaaren L. Barr, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Carolyn Vines Sapla, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Neneng Yulia and her son, Rino Mulia Yusuf, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceed ings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely because they filed the motion more than 90 days after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2), and did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances in Indonesia, see 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004)(cireumstances must have changed "sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.