FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TUYEN HONG NGUYEN a.k.a. Nguyen No. 10-71270
Tuyen Hong; et al.,
Agency Nos. A077-427-195
Petitioners, A077-427-196
A077-427-197
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Tuyen Hong Nguyen and his wife and son, all citizens of Vietnam, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their
motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to present sufficient
evidence of changed circumstances in Vietnam 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); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The
critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a
petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a
well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s denial of Tuan Anh Nguyen’s
separate motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-71270