NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELINCIA PHANG; HENDRICK LIAUW, No. 14-71846
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A088-102-228
A088-102-229
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Felincia Phang and Hendrick Liauw, 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 denial of a motion to reopen,
*
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).
Najmabadi 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 it was filed over two years after the BIA’s final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish materially
changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time limit 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-71846