Case Name: Herman SURJADI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-07
Citations: 395 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 08-75119
Parties: Herman SURJADI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 371–371

Head Matter:
Herman SURJADI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-75119.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
Filed Sept. 7, 2010.
Raul Ernesto Godinez, Esquire, Law Office of Raul E. Godinez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Gregory Michael Kelch, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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
Herman Surjadi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, 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 Surjadi's motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed over five years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Surjadi failed to establish changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.