Wira Reagan Kojongian v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WIRA REAGAN KOJONGIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72334
Agency No. A078-020-340
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Wira Reagan Kojongian, 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi
* 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
APR 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-72334
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kojongian’s motion to
reopen as untimely and number barred, where it was filed more than eleven years
after the order of removal became final and was beyond the numerical limitations,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Kojongian did not establish changed
country conditions in Indonesia that are material to his claim for relief, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (requiring material evidence of changed circumstances to
qualify for exception to the time and numerical limitations for motions to reopen);
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to
warrant reopening).
We deny Kojongian’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10).
See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s
review is limited to the administrative record).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --