Lilik Lindawati v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 548 F. App'x 417 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 6 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LILIK AJU LINDAWATI; FOFU No. 12-71490
TJOENG,
Agency Nos. A075-758-507
Petitioners, A075-758-508
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Lilik Aju Lindawati and Fofu Tjoeng, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their second 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
*
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).
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’ untimely and
number-barred motion to reopen because it considered the record and acted within
its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish
prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See id. (agency may deny a motion to
reopen based on failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought);
Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (“vague and
conclusory allegations” are insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility). We
reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA employed the wrong standard in
reviewing their motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-71490