FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SRI ENDANG; HERMAN SUHENDRA, No. 12-74056
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A096-048-710
A096-048-711
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
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.
Sri Endang and Herman Suhendra, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their
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.
*
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).
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than four years after the
BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners did not demonstrate
materially changed conditions in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception
to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” from the
evidence presented at the previous hearing). In light of this conclusion, we need
not address petitioners’ remaining contentions.
Finally, our review is limited to the administrative record, and thus we do
not consider materials referenced in petitioners’ opening brief that were not part of
the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 964-64 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-74056