Rika Siringo Ringo v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIKA FRISTDA SIRINGO RINGO, No. 17-73293
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-875-142
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Rika Fristda Siringo Ringo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi
*
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).
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 Siringo Ringo’s motion to
reopen as untimely and number barred, where it was filed more than ten years after
the order of removal became final and was beyond the numerical limitations, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Siringo Ringo did not establish changed country
conditions in Indonesia that are material to her claim for relief, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (requiring material evidence of changed circumstances to qualify
for exception to the time and numerical limitations for motions to reopen);
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to
warrant reopening).
To the extent Siringo Ringo contends the BIA erred by failing to consider
her claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) in conducting
the changed country conditions analysis, we reject the contention as unsupported
by the record.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Siringo Ringo’s contentions
regarding prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under CAT. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they
reach).
2 17-73293
As stated in the court’s March 12, 2018 order, the stay of removal remains in
place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-73293