Case Name: Catherine KANDOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-11
Citations: 568 F. App'x 489
Docket Number: No. 12-71173
Parties: Catherine KANDOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 489–490

Head Matter:
Catherine KANDOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71173.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2014.
Decided April 11, 2014.
David M. Haghighi, Law Offices of David M. Haghighi, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Aimee J. Carmichael, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, 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
Catherine Kandou, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. 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). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kandou's untimely motion to reopen because she did not establish changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (petitioner's evidence was not "qualitatively different" because it described conditions similar to those in evidence at her prior proceedings). In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Kan-dou's arguments regarding prima facie eligibility for relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.