Mosese Maravou; Siteri Maravou; Merewalesi Adivukivu Maravou 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOSESE MARAVOU;
SITERI MARAVOU;
MEREWALESI ADIVUKIVU
MARAVOU,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72360
Agency Nos. A076-868-622
A076-868-623
A076-868-624
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Mosese Maravou and his wife and adult daughter, natives and citizens of
Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 07-72360 2
denying their 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed
circumstances in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed
sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for
asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --