Case Name: Mosese MARAVOU; Siteri Maravou; Merewalesi Adivukivu Maravou, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-19
Citations: 362 F. App'x 719
Docket Number: No. 07-72360
Parties: Mosese MARAVOU; Siteri Maravou; Merewalesi Adivukivu Maravou, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 719–720

Head Matter:
Mosese MARAVOU; Siteri Maravou; Merewalesi Adivukivu Maravou, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72360.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
Alan M. Kaufman, Esq., David J. Kaufman, Esq., Kaufman & Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, Mosese Maravou, East Palo Alto, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., David E. Dauen-heimer, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mosese Maravou and his wife and adult daughter, natives and citizens of Fiji, 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 abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturri-barria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). 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 two years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed circumstances in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) ("The critical question is . whether circumstances 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.