22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T444,MEMORANDUM Bambang Sugiharto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’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 Sugiharto’s motion to reopen because he filed it more than five years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and the motion failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the limitations imposed on filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii), see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T471,

MEMORANDUM

Bambang Sugiharto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’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 Sugiharto’s motion to reopen because he filed it more than five years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and the motion failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the limitations imposed on filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii), see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.