Frank Lie; Trace Gunawan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANK LIE; TRACE GUNAWAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71527
Agency Nos. A077-815-113
A077-855-356
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Frank Lie and Trace Gunawan, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion
to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71527 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v.
INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’
motion to reopen because the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s
order dismissing the underlying appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Dela
Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“[T]he pendency
of a petition for review of an order of removal does not toll the statutory time limit
for the filing of a motion to reopen with the BIA.”). Additionally, petitioners
failed to present sufficient evidence of 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 He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1131-32
(9th Cir. 2007) (change in personal circumstances does not establish changed
circumstances in the country of origin excusing untimely motion to reopen).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence
because they have not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record.
See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --