GIDEON SIHOTANG V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-71271 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 03 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GIDEON SAHAT PERWIRA SIHOTANG, No. 12-71271 Agency No. A078-020-208 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 23, 2014** Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Gideon Sahat Perwira Sihotang, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 * 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). F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Sihotang s second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where Sihotang filed the motion six years after the BIA s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-89 (evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively different from what could have been presented at prior hearing). We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See MejiaHernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Matter of GD-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999) (BIA s consideration of whether a fundamental change in the law warrants reopening involves an exercise of its sua sponte authority). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 12-71271

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.