Shirley Ingrid Patricia Turangan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHIRLEY INGRID PATRICIA
TURANGAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71967
Agency No. A095-875-537
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Shirley Ingrid Patricia Turangan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reconsider and to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71967 2
denial of motions to reconsider or reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964
(9th Cir. 2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Turangan’s motion to
reconsider where Turangan did not point to any error of law or fact in the BIA’s
underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
Finally, with respect to the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen, Turangan
does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to show her religious
studies established a prima facie case that it is more likely than not she would face
persecution in Indonesia. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge made to the BIA’s October 20,
2010, Order because the petition is not timely as to that decision. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --