NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENDY RIYANTO HO and FNU LILY, No. 14-73709
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A089-780-547
A089-780-548
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM *
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Hendy Riyanto Ho and Lily, 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, 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely, where they filed it more than a year after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where petitioners failed to establish materially
changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to
warrant reopening). We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred in its
analysis. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a
general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73709