TUYEN HONG NGUYEN a.k.a. Nguyen Tuyen Hong; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TUYEN HONG NGUYEN a.k.a. Nguyen
Tuyen Hong; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71270
Agency Nos. A077-427-195
A077-427-196
A077-427-197
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Tuyen Hong Nguyen and his wife and son, all citizens of Vietnam, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their
motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71270 2
§ 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny 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 three 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 Vietnam 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); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The
critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a
petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a
well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s denial of Tuan Anh Nguyen’s
separate motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --