Case Name: LIAN BIE LIM; Ryandi Siswojo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-17
Citations: 518 F. App'x 581
Docket Number: No. 11-72402
Parties: LIAN BIE LIM; Ryandi Siswojo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 518
Pages: 581–582

Head Matter:
LIAN BIE LIM; Ryandi Siswojo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72402.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 17, 2013.
DAVID M. HAGHIGHI LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. HAGHIGHI, APC LOS ANGELES, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, 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, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Lian Bie Lim and Ryandi Siswojo, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 989 (new evidence in a motion to reopen must be "qualitatively different" from the evidence presented at the prior hearing). In light of our conclusion, we do not reach petitioners' remaining contention that they established a prima facie case for relief based on their membership in a disfavored group.
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners' contention regarding a change in law because they did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision to not exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.