From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pio v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 21, 2015
620 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 12-71487

10-21-2015

JULIANA PIO, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A096-361-993 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Juliana Pio, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency's denial of a motion to reopen, 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 the motion to reopen to apply our decisions in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010). See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1065 (even under disfavored group analysis, petitioner must present some evidence of individualized risk).

Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pio's motion to reopen, because Pio failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Pio v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 21, 2015
620 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Pio v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:JULIANA PIO, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 21, 2015

Citations

620 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2015)