The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-71283•Olvyke Chanette Langie v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
13-71283Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 25, 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OLVYKE CHANETTE LANGIE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71283
Agency No. A079-535-288
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Olvyke Chanette Langie, 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 abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and we
FILED
FEB 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings. Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review the BIA’s findings of fact for
substantial evidence. Id. We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Langie’s motion to reopen
as untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Langie failed to establish changed
circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a
motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Finally, we reject Langie’s contention that the BIA’s bases for denial were
unclear, or that it applied an incorrect legal standard, and/or inadequately reviewed
the evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered
evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). Thus, we need not address
Langie’s remaining challenges to the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-71283 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.