Case Name: Virginia TAMBUNAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-30
Citations: 405 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 08-74354
Parties: Virginia TAMBUNAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
Virginia TAMBUNAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74354.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
Filed Nov. 30, 2010.
Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, 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
Virginia Tambunan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her 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, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tambunan's motion to reopen as untimely where Tambunan filed the motion almost four years after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to submit material evidence of changed circumstances in Indonesia that would excuse the late filing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (requiring circumstances to 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.