Lian Bie Lim; Ryandi Siswojo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LIAN BIE LIM; RYANDI SISWOJO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72402
Agency Nos. A098-131-042
A098-131-043
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Lian Bie Lim and Ryandi Siswojo, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their
motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
FILED
MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72402 2
reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners 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 (new evidence in a motion to
reopen must be “qualitatively different” from the evidence presented at the prior
hearing). In light of our conclusion, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contention that they established a prima facie case for relief based on their
membership in a disfavored group.
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention regarding a change in
law because they did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004). We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to not
exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. See Mejia-
Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --