Triananto Budiono v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRIANANTO BUDIONO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72788
Agency No. A095-629-888
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Triananto Budiono, 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. Holder,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72788
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Budiono’s motion to reopen
as untimely where the motion was filed more than six years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Budiono failed to provide sufficient
evidence of materially changed country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for a
regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th
Cir. 2008) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish materially
changed country conditions).
We reject Budiono’s contention that the BIA failed to consider arguments or
record evidence, or otherwise erred in analyzing his claim. See Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 990-91 (the court “defer[s] to the BIA’s exercise of discretion unless it
acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --