Case Name: Bradley Jimmy Michael PRATASIK, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-22
Citations: 677 F. App'x 420
Docket Number: No. 12-74017
Parties: Bradley Jimmy Michael PRATASIK, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 420–420

Head Matter:
Bradley Jimmy Michael PRATASIK, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-74017
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 22, 2017
Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner
Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Timothy Bo Stanton, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Bradley Jimmy Michael Pratasik, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his untimely 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 BIÁ did not abuse its discretion in denying Pratasik's motion to reopen because he failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for an exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h), Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-89 (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.