Fitsgerald Johanes 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FITSGERALD JOHANES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72990
Agency No. A095-629-938
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Fitsgerald Johanes, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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 v. Holder,
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-72990
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due process
violations. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Johanes’s untimely motion
to reopen where the motion was filed almost six years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Johanes failed to establish changed
circumstances in Indonesia material to his claim, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (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 persecution).
We reject Johanes’s contention that the BIA’s decision is insufficient and denies
him due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error to prevail on a due process claim). Further, in light of our prior decision, we
reject Johanes’s contention that he should be given a chance to reopen his case
based on changes in the case law surrounding Christian Indonesians. See Johanes
v. Holder, No. 05-73687, 2010 WL 2232482 (9th Cir. June 3, 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --