Wibowo Muliawan Karfendi; Juniar Tuti Simbolon v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WIBOWO MULIAWAN KARFENDI;
JUNIAR TUTI SIMBOLON,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71549
Agency Nos. A075-639-957
A075-639-958
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Wibowo Muliawan Karfendi and Juniar Tuti Simbolon, 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
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 06-71549 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where petitioners filed the motion more than three years after
the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen
must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and failed to submit
new and material evidence of changed country conditions in Indonesia that would
excuse the late filing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at
945 (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 future persecution).
To the extent petitioners contend that the BIA failed to consider some or all
of the evidence they submitted, they have not overcome the presumption that the
BIA did review the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th
Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --