Charley Zacharia v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLEY ZACHARIA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71805
Agency No. A075-683-010
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Charley Zacharia, 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 denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
* 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).
FILED
JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71805
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zacharia’s third motion to
reopen1 as untimely and numerically barred where he filed the motion fifteen years
after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to establish
materially changed country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for an exception to
the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (evidence must be “qualitatively
different” to warrant reopening); Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014)
(holding “that the procedural requirements specified in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) apply
to CAT claims). The record does not support Zacharia’s contentions that the BIA
failed to consider his evidence or otherwise erred in analyzing his claims. See
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA adequately considered evidence and
sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 See Zacharia v. Lynch, 658 F.App’x. 318 (9th Cir. 2016).

-- 2 of 2 --