
    Hendy Riyanto HO and FNU Lily, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73709
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 15, 2017
    David M. Haghighi, Attorney, Law Offices of David M. Haghighi, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, 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: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hendy Riyanto Ho and Lily, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 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), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely, where they filed it more than a year after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where petitioners failed to establish 'materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred in its analysis. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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