Irma Putri Wiraya v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRMA PUTRI WIRAYA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71133
Agency No. A096-351-599
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Irma Putri Wiraya, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) March 13, 2015, order denying her
motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and review de novo claims
* 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
JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-71133
of due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002).
We deny the petition for review.
We do not consider Wiraya’s contention that she timely filed her motion to
reopen proceedings, or her contention concerning the sufficiency of her motion to
reopen, which were previously reviewed by this court in Wiraya v. Holder, 585
Fed. Appx. 495 (9th Cir. 2014).
On remand from this court, in denying Wiraya’s motion to reconsider, the
BIA found that the contents of Wiraya’s documents did not establish any material
change in conditions in Indonesia. The BIA did not abuse discretion in denying
Wiraya’s motion to reconsider. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th
Cir. 2010) (court “defer[s] to the BIA’s exercise of discretion unless it acted
arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with
motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed).
We reject Wiraya’s contentions that the BIA, on remand, failed to comply
with this court’s order, and that the BIA erred by not soliciting supplemental
briefing or holding oral arguments. Thus, Wiraya’s due process claims fail. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-71133
due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --