Juliana Pio v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIANA PIO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71487
Agency No. A096-361-993
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Juliana Pio, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
OCT 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen, 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 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). See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1065 (even under disfavored group analysis, petitioner must present some evidence
of individualized risk).
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pio’s motion to
reopen, because Pio failed to establish materially changed circumstances in
Indonesia to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence must be
“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71487 2

-- 2 of 2 --