Hartono

MEMORANDUM **

Anton Wibowo Hartono and Shinta, 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hartono’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Hartono failed to establish changed circumstances to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(h); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987, 989-90 (the new evidence must be “qualitatively different” from the evidence at the previous hearing).

We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to the BIA’s decision not to sua sponte reopen proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

We deny Hartono’s motions for judicial notice. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en…