Case Name: Felincia PHANG; Hendrick Liauw, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-02
Citations: 698 F. App'x 546
Docket Number: No. 14-71846
Parties: Felincia PHANG; Hendrick Liauw, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 546–546

Head Matter:
Felincia PHANG; Hendrick Liauw, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-71846
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
OCTOBER 2, 2017
David M. Haghighi, Law Offices of David M. Haghighi, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. 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
Felincia Phang and Hendrick Liauw, natives and citizens of Indonesia, 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. § 1262. We review for abuse of discretion the 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 petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed over two years after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.