FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THIELA SUHENDRA SUGIARTO, No. 11-72055
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-635-961
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Thiela Suhendra Sugiarto, 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 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).
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 Sugiarto’s untimely motion
to reopen where the motion was filed almost three years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Sugiarto failed to establish changed
circumstances in Indonesia material to her claim, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring
circumstances to have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not
have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of persecution).
We reject Sugiarto’s contention that the BIA failed to consider her evidence.
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen in light of
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 v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065
(9th Cir. 2009) (even under disfavored group analysis, some evidence of
individualized risk is necessary for the petitioner to succeed).
We reject Sugiarto’s contention that her due process rights were violated
because the BIA denied her motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). We reject Sugiarto’s
contention that the BIA erred by failing to address her pattern or practice of
2 11-72055
persecution claim.
Finally, we deny Sugiarto’s request for judicial notice, set forth in her reply
brief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-72055