Siegfried Wagiu; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SIEGFRIED WAGIU; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73995
Agency Nos. A095-630-215
A095-630-214
A095-630-213
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Siegfried Wagiu and his family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73995 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where it was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed
circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence
submitted with motion to reopen must be qualitatively different from the evidence
presented at the original hearing); see also Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013,
1022 (9th Cir. 2004) (regulatory exception to time limitation does not extend to
alleged changes in United States asylum law). We reject petitioners’ contention
that the BIA failed to sufficiently explain its decision. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at
990.
In light of our decision in Wagiu v. Mukasey, 299 Fed.Appx. 686 (9th Cir.
Nov. 4, 2008), the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen
to apply our decisions in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009), and
Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --