Ricky Richardo Lumentut, a.k.a. Ricky Richardo Lulmentut 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICKY RICHARDO LUMENTUT, a.k.a.
Ricky Richardo Lulmentut,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71737
Agency No. A078-020-219
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ricky Richardo Lumentut, 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
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v.
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-71737 2
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and review de novo due process claims,
Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lumentut’s motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s
final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lumentut failed to establish
materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed
circumstances must be qualitatively different from what could have been presented
at prior hearing). Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Lumentut’s motion to reopen based on Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.
2009) and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010), because
Lumentut did not present sufficient evidence of individualized risk of persecution.
See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would
an asylum applicant”). We reject Lumentut’s contentions regarding the BIA’s
2007 decision in light of our decision in Lumentut v. Holder, No. 07-74777, 2010
WL 1474216 (9th Cir. Apr. 14, 2010). We further reject Lumentut’s contention

-- 2 of 3 --

11-71737 3
that the BIA violated his due process rights by insufficiently explaining its
conclusion regarding changed country conditions. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990
(BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention”) (internal quotations and
citation omitted); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --