Virginia Tambunan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VIRGINIA TAMBUNAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74354
Agency No. A079-195-334
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Virginia Tambunan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
NOV 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74354 2
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d
942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tambunan’s motion to
reopen as untimely where Tambunan filed the motion almost four years after the
BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to submit
material evidence of changed circumstances 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --