Case Name: Rika Fristda Siringo RINGO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-03
Citations: 635 F. App'x 397
Docket Number: No. 12-73936
Parties: Rika Fristda Siringo RINGO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 635
Pages: 397–397

Head Matter:
Rika Fristda Siringo RINGO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73936.
United States Court of Appeals,. Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed March 3, 2016.
Howard Robert Davis, Law Offices of Howard R. Davis, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Kathryn Deangelis, DOJ-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: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, 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
Rika Fristda Siringo Ringo, 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 agency'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 Siringo Ringo's third untimely motion to reopen because she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (stating the hurdles a petitioner needs to clear in order to prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions); see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir.2009) ("[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.