Serli Guncoro; Aswanto 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SERLI GUNCORO; ASWANTO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70595
Agency Nos. A096-066-470
A096-066-471
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Serli Guncoro and Aswanto, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion
to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70595 2
v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). 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 eighteen months after the BIA’s
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and 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); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (to prevail on a motion to reopen
based on changed country conditions, applicant must inter alia demonstrate that
his evidence establishes prima facie eligibility for relief); Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (in the asylum context, “some evidence of
individualized risk is necessary for the petitioner to succeed”).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s denial of their motion
violated due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to not reopen
removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818,
823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --