Silvana

Silvana v. Mukasey

Good Law
309 F. App'x 140
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 20, 2009No. 05-74347California265 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Vonny Deanne Silvana and Jojo Franco Setlight, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), and review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 22 months after the BIA’s June 16, 2003 orders dismissing Petitioners’ appeal, and Petitioners failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2 (c)(2), (c)(3)(h); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (“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’ contention that the BIA violated due process because it did not allow them to present evidence at a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.