Bambang Marihot 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BAMBANG MARIHOT,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70343
Agency No. A095-629-752
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judge.
Bambang Marihot, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70343 2
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Marihot’s motion to
reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the final
agency decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Accordingly, the BIA did not err in
refusing to reconsider the prior adverse credibility determination.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to not reopen
removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818,
823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Marihot’s unexhausted contention that
there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)
Marihot’s motion for judicial notice is denied. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --