Wira Reagan Kojongian 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WIRA REAGAN KOJONGIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70712
Agency No. A078-020-340
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Wira Reagan Kojongian, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to
reconsider and/or reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen,
FILED
OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-70712 2
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kojongian’s motion to
reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA’s
decisions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion,
construed as a motion to reopen, as untimely and number-barred because
Kojongian filed the second motion over four years after the BIA’s final decision,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kojongian failed to demonstrate changed
circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and
number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2010).
The BIA also considered Kojongian’s claims in light of the court’s decisions
in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009), and Tampubolon v. Holder,
610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010), and concluded that Kojongian failed to demonstrate
exceptional circumstances to warrant reopening under the its sua sponte authority.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen under its sua
sponte authority. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.
2011).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-70712 3
Finally, we reject Kojongian’s requests that the court reconsider its stance
regarding a pattern or practice of persecution or require the BIA to reconsider his
motion on this basis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --