Ingrid Rumagit v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ingrid Anggraini Rumagit and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen because they did not establish changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 989-90 . Further, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s decision was insufficient. See id. at 990 (BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention,” just “consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Despite our prior decision, Rumagit v. Mukasey, 295 Fed.Appx. 172 (9th Cir. 2008), in which the court applied the disfavored…