Opinion
No. 12-70624 Agency No. A095-634-616
10-15-2013
DRIAWAN LUKMAN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Driawan Lukman, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his 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. See 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 Lukman's 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 Lukman failed to present sufficient evidence of 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); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 989. We reject Lukman's contentions that the BIA failed to explain its decision adequately and failed to consider evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 ("[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.") (internal quotes omitted).
In light of our prior decision in Lukman v. Holder, No. 07-74179 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2010), the BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen to consider our decisions in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009), and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.