Case Name: RINAWATI, aka Rinawati Fnu; Tjahaja Pratomo Bong, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-24
Citations: 623 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 13-72510
Parties: RINAWATI, aka Rinawati Fnu; Tjahaja Pratomo Bong, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 406–406

Head Matter:
RINAWATI, aka Rinawati Fnu; Tjahaja Pratomo Bong, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72510.
United States Court of Appeals, Nmth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 24, 2015.
Jack Herzig, Esquire, Law Offices of Jack Herzig, Wyncote, PA, for Petitioners.
Regrna Byrd, Esquire, 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: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Rinawati and Tjahaja Pratomo Bong, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying them motion to reopen immigration 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). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion m denymg petitioners' motion to reopen because it was untimely and petitioners did not establish materially changed circumstances in Indonesia as to overcome the time limitation for a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening). We reject petitioners' contention that the BIA ignored evidence. See id. at 986 (the court "defer[s] to the BIA's exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.