Case Name: Bambang SUGIHARTO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-14
Citations: 695 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 14-70920
Parties: Bambang SUGIHARTO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
Bambang SUGIHARTO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70920
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 14, 2017
Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner
David Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, 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
Bambang Sugiharto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen 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 Sugiharto's motion to reopen because he filed it more than five years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the motion failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the limitations imposed on filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.