Case Name: Jootje Johanes KAMBEY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-27
Citations: 540 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 12-70220
Parties: Jootje Johanes KAMBEY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 682–682

Head Matter:
Jootje Johanes KAMBEY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70220.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Sept. 27, 2013.
Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
Jason Wisecup, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Jootje Johanes Kambey, 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 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 Kambe/s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over three years after the BIA's final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kambey failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively different from evidence that could have been presented at prior hearing).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.