HENDY HO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-73709 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 15 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HENDY RIYANTO HO and FNU LILY, Petitioners, No. 14-73709 Agency Nos. A089-780-547 A089-780-548 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Hendy Riyanto Ho and Lily, 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi * 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). 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 they filed it more than a year after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where petitioners failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation 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). We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred in its analysis. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73709

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.