Court Opinion

ID: 4173772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-06-01 20:04:36.489043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:09.100188
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 1 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAX EVERHARDUS DE FRETES,                       No.    14-70710

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A096-338-575

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before:      THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.

      Max Everhardus De Fretes, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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, Najmabadi v.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 De Fretes’ motion to reopen

as untimely, where it was filed over four years after the BIA’s final order of

removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where De Fretes failed to establish

materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory

exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively

different” to warrant reopening).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                      14-70710