FELINCIA PHANG V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-71846 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELINCIA PHANG; HENDRICK LIAUW, Petitioners, No. 14-71846 Agency Nos. A088-102-228 A088-102-229 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Felincia Phang and Hendrick Liauw, 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, * 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). Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed over two years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71846

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.