Charley Zacharia v. William Barr

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLEY ZACHARIA, No. 18-71805 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-683-010

v.

MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 11, 2019** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Charley Zacharia, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597

*

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

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zacharia’s third motion to reopen1 as untimely and numerically barred where he filed the motion fifteen years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for an exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening); Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding “that the procedural requirements specified in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) apply to CAT claims). The record does not support Zacharia’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider his evidence or otherwise erred in analyzing his claims. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

1 See Zacharia v. Lynch, 658 F.App’x. 318 (9th Cir. 2016).

2 18-71805