Ferry Liando v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 585 F. App'x 681 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERRY LIANDO; CHIEN HUI YANG, No. 11-73271
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A078-669-954
A078-669-955
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ferry Liando, a native and citizen of Indonesia, and his wife Chien Hui
Yang, a native of Taiwan and citizen of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider and
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen.
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider as untimely because petitioners filed it more than 30 days after the
BIA’s decisions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely because petitioners filed it more than ten years after the BIA’s
final decision, and they failed to establish materially changed country conditions in
Indonesia to overcome the limitations on motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (petitioner failed to submit
“qualitatively different” evidence).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen in light of
the court’s decisions in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009), and
Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010). See Toufighi v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner must demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for relief in order to reopen); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1065 (even under
disfavored group analysis, petitioner must present some evidence of individualized
risk).
2 11-73271
Finally, we reject petitioners’ requests related to a pattern or practice of
persecution.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73271