Johnson Napitulpulu v. Jefferson Sessions , 693 F. App'x 617 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 7 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNSON NAPITULPULU, Nos. 13-71873
14-71291
Petitioner,
Agency No. A095-634-743
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Johnson Napitulpulu, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motions to
reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions (No. 13-71873)
and based on ineffective assistance of counsel (No. 14-71291). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s
denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.
2008), and we deny the petitions for review.
As to No. 13-71873, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Napitulpulu’s motion to reopen where it was filed more than five years after the
BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Napitulpulu failed to establish
prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (the
BIA may deny a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for failure
to establish a prima case); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th Cir. 2009)
(even under disfavored group analysis, petitioner must present some evidence of
individualized risk).
As to No. 14-71291, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Napitulpulu’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where it
was filed more than six years after the BIA’s final order and was numerically-
barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Napitupulu failed to demonstrate
that he acted with the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling, see
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling of time and
numerical limitations on motions to reopen available where petitioner is prevented
from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-71291