
    Johnson NAPITULPULU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 13-71873, 14-71291
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 7, 2017
    Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner
    Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Regina Byrd, Esquire, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent'
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Johnson Napitulpulu, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motions to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions (No, 13-71873) and based on ineffective assistance of counsel (No. 14-71291). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petitions for review.

As to No. 13-71873, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Napitulpu-lu’s motion to reopen where it was filed more than five years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Napitulpulu failed to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, see Tou-fighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for failure to establish a prima case); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (even under disfavored group analysis, petitioner must present some evidence of individualized risk).

As to No. 14-71291, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Napitulpu-lu’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where it was filed more than six years after the BIA’s final order and was numerically-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Napitu-pulu failed to demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling of time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen available where petitioner is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence).

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