Richard Hutauruk 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICHARD HUTAURUK,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73989
Agency No. A078-020-270
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Richard Hutauruk, 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
FILED
JUL 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73989 2
an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hutauruk’s 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 Hutauruk 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); Najmabadi
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence supporting a motion to
reopen must be “qualitatively different” from what was presented at the initial
hearing). We reject Hutauruk’s contention that the BIA’s analysis was inadequate.
See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (“[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis
on every contention”) (internal quotes omitted).
Finally, in light of our conclusions in Hutauruk v. Mukasey, 302 Fed. Appx.
695, 696 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2008), 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --