FERRY LIANDO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73271 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOV 25 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FERRY LIANDO; CHIEN HUI YANG, Petitioners, No. 11-73271 Agency Nos. A078-669-954 A078-669-955 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Ferry Liando, a native and citizen of Indonesia, and his wife Chien Hui Yang, a native of Taiwan and citizen of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * 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). review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider as untimely because petitioners filed it more than 30 days after the BIA’s decisions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because petitioners filed it more than ten years after the BIA’s final decision, and they failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Indonesia to overcome the limitations on motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (petitioner failed to submit “qualitatively different” evidence). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen in light of the court’s decisions in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009), and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010). See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1065 (even under disfavored group analysis, petitioner must present some evidence of individualized risk). 2 11-73271 Finally, we reject petitioners’ requests related to a pattern or practice of persecution. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 11-73271
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.
