Atto Gampu; Charlotte Irene Tuuk 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ATTO GAMPU; CHARLOTTE IRENE
TUUK,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71779
Agency Nos. A095-310-917
A095-310-918
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Atto Gampu and Charlotte Irene Tuuk, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71779 2
§ 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to present sufficient
evidence of changed circumstances 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 v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-89 (9th Cir. 2010) (the
new evidence must be “qualitatively different” from the evidence at the previous
hearing).
In light of our conclusion, we decline to address petitioners’ contention that
they are members of a disfavored group.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --