Robert Hasiholan Simbolon, a.k.a. Robert Agustinus, a.k.a. Robert Hasiholan Slimbolon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBERT HASIHOLAN SIMBOLON,
a.k.a. Robert Agustinus, a.k.a. Robert
Hasiholan Slimbolon,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71806
Agency No. A078-020-378
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Robert Hasiholan Simbolon, 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
FILED
JUL 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71806 2
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.
With respect to Simbolon’s claims based on Christianity, the BIA did not
abuse its discretion in denying Simbolon’s motion to reopen as untimely where the
motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and Simbolon 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); see Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence of changed circumstances
must be qualitatively different from what was presented at the prior hearing).
With respect to Simbolon’s claims based on the murder of his relatives and
his fear of his former employee, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Simbolon’s motion to reopen, because it considered the record and acted within its
broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish
prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT. See Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --