Fransen Feri Wijaya, a.k.a. Sen Hwee Oei 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANSEN FERI WIJAYA, a.k.a. Sen
Hwee Oei,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73583
Agency No. A095-634-597
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Fransen Feri Wijaya, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reconsider and motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73583 2
of a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
In light of our conclusions in Wijaya v. Holder, No. 08-70270, (9th Cir. Jan.
10, 2011), the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider
in order to apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in our decision in
Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Wijaya’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Wijaya’s new evidence fails to
demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standards
governing motions to reopen).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction over any challenge to the BIA’s decision not to
reopen sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.
2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --