Meien Li v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 584 F. App'x 296 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            AUG 15 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MEIEN LI,                                        No. 13-71170
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A096-057-365
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted August 13, 2014**
    Before:        SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Meien Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of
    Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying her 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, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 
    272 F.3d 1176
    , 1187 (9th
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Cir. 2001) (en banc), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
    review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s motion to reopen as
    untimely where the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s final
    order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and she has not demonstrated that an
    exception to the time limitations on motions applies, see id; 
    Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1193
    . Contrary to Li’s contention, the BIA adequately addressed her
    contentions regarding the impact recent BIA decisions had on her eligibility for
    relief under INA § 237(a)(1)(H). See Najmabadi v. Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 990 (9th
    Cir. 2010) (the BIA “must consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in
    terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and
    thought and not merely reacted”).
    We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s discretionary decision not to
    reopen sua sponte pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez v.
    Holder, 
    633 F.3d 818
    , 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Matter of G-D-, 22 I. & N.
    Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999) (BIA’s consideration of whether a fundamental
    change in the law warrants reopening involves an exercise of its sua sponte
    authority).
    2                                      13-71170
    In light of this disposition, we need not reach Li’s remaining contentions.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    3                                    13-71170
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-71170

Citation Numbers: 584 F. App'x 296

Filed Date: 8/15/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023