Maravou v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 599 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOSESE MARAVOU; No. 07-72360
SITERI MARAVOU;
MEREWALESI ADIVUKIVU Agency Nos. A076-868-622
MARAVOU, A076-868-623
A076-868-624
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Mosese Maravou and his wife and adult daughter, natives and citizens of
Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JK/Research
denying their 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny 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 two years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed
circumstances in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed
sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for
asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
JK/Research 2 07-72360