Rika Fristda Siringo Ringo v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIKA FRISTDA SIRINGO RINGO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73936
Agency No. A095-875-142
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Rika Fristda Siringo Ringo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to
* 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).
FILED
MAR 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 12-73936
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 Siringo Ringo’s third
untimely motion to reopen because she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for
the relief sought. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2007)
(stating the hurdles a petitioner needs to clear in order to prevail on a motion to
reopen based on changed country conditions); see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will
need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to
prevail”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --