Fatimah; Junisan Hajato Simatupan 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FATIMAH; JUNISAN HAJATO
SIMATUPAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72435
Agency Nos. A097-354-995
A095-635-769
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Fatimah and Junisan Hajato Simatupan, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion for reconsideration. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-72435 2
Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th
Cir. 2002), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA’s final
removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). We lack
jurisdiction to consider any contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing
to exercise its sua sponte authority to reconsider their case. See Mejia-Hernandez
v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011). We also lack jurisdiction to
consider petitioners’ claim that changed circumstances arising in Indonesia should
excuse their motion from the time limitations for motions to reopen or reconsider
because they failed to raise that claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Further, we deny petitioners’ motion to take judicial notice of the two
versions of the 2010 U.S. Department of State International Religious Freedom
Report for Indonesia. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc). In light of this conclusion, we reject as unnecessary the government’s
request to strike the portions of petitioners’ opening brief that rely on the report.

-- 2 of 3 --

11-72435 3
Finally, we reject petitioners’ requests that the court either reconsider its
stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution, or require the BIA to
reconsider their motion on this basis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --