SUNTARI SRI V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-70673 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 02 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUNTARI SRI; et al., No. 09-70673 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A095-176-943 A095-177-925 A095-177-926 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Suntari Sri and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and * 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). 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 over four years after the BIA s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish 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); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) ( The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution. ). We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners contention that the disfavored group analysis applies to the changed circumstances exception to the time limit for motions to reopen because the issue was not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 09-70673

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.