Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
12-71841•Leonard Manegeng v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
12-71841Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit24.01.2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEONARD MANEGENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71841
Agency No. A095-629-993
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Leonard Manegeng, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
FILED
JAN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Manegeng’s motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than four years after the
BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Manegeng did not demonstrate
materially changed conditions in Indonesia 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);
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” from the
evidence presented at the previous hearing). We reject Manegeng’s contention that
the BIA failed to adequately consider the evidence presented with the motion to
reopen. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen
removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818,
823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-71841 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.