Vonny Mieke Supit; Pierson Figuhr Sangari 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VONNY MIEKE SUPIT; PIERSON
FIGUHR SANGARI,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73988
Agency Nos. A079-521-213
A079-521-214
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Vonny Mieke Supit and Pierson Figuhr Sangari, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73988 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where it was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed
circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence
submitted with motion to reopen must be qualitatively different from the evidence
presented at the original hearing); see also Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013,
1022 (9th Cir. 2004) (regulatory exception to time limitation does not extend to
alleged changes in United States asylum law).
In light of our decision in Supit v. Mukasey, 302 Fed.Appx. 613 (9th Cir.
Dec. 2, 2008), the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen
to apply our decisions in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009), and
Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --