Tommy Benny Sudiartate v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

19-72585Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit14 ott 2021

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOMMY BENNY SUDIARTATE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72585
Agency No. A096-499-646
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Tommy Benny Sudiartate, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 14 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-72585
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sudiartate’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed more than seven years after the
final order of removal, and where Sudiartate failed to demonstrate a material
change in country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to
the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA did not
abuse its discretion in denying motion to reopen where petitioner failed to submit
material evidence of qualitatively different country conditions).
Sudiartate’s motion to take judicial notice is denied. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the
administrative record).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.