Shuxiong Dong v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 548 F. App'x 434 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           DEC 9 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SHU XIONG DONG,                                  No. 12-71669
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A095-448-360
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted November 19, 2013**
    Before:        CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    Shu Xiong Dong, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
    reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
    review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.
    *
    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).
    Najmabadi v. Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
    review.
    For a second time, Dong argues the BIA should have reopened his case
    based on changes in China’s country conditions with respect to Falun Gong
    practitioners and based on the birth of his second child in the United States. The
    BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dong’s motion to reopen as time-
    barred and number-barred, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), where Dong failed to
    demonstrate he qualified for an exception to the limitations on motions to reopen,
    see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(3); Najmabadi, 
    597 F.3d at 986
     (we “defer to the BIA’s
    exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”)
    (citation omitted).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                      12-71669
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-71669

Citation Numbers: 548 F. App'x 434

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Trott

Filed Date: 12/9/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023