Suntari Sri; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SUNTARI SRI; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70673
Agency Nos. A095-176-943
A095-177-925
A095-177-926
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Suntari Sri and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion
to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an
abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70673 2
we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over four 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 limit
for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether
circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not
have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future
persecution.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that the disfavored
group analysis applies to the changed circumstances exception to the time limit for
motions to reopen because the issue was not exhausted before the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --