Andrian Sutheno v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 574 F. App'x 781 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRIAN SUTHENO, No. 12-70405
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-807-364
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Andrian Sutheno, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 Sutheno’s motion to reopen
because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Sutheno failed to
establish materially changed circumstances in Indonesia so as to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence must be
“qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the previous hearing” to
warrant reopening).
We lack jurisdiction to consider any contention by Sutheno challenging the
BIA’s rejection of his request for sua sponte reopening. See Minasyan v. Mukasey,
553 F.3d 1224, 1229 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-70405