Shu Hua Tan v. Holder , 388 F. App'x 653 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUL 19 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ZHI QIN HONG, a.k.a. Miss Sala                   No. 07-74232
    Klomkliang,
    Agency No. A075-467-736
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 29, 2010 **
    Before:        ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Zhi Qin Hong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
    removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for
    *
    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).
    abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 
    321 F.3d 889
    , 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hong’s motion to reopen as
    untimely where it was filed eight years after the BIA’s final administrative
    decision, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), and Hong failed to establish changed
    circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
    limitation, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(3)(ii); see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 
    538 F.3d 988
    ,
    996 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in
    order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions).
    Hong’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence submitted
    with the motion to reopen fails, because she has not overcome the presumption that
    the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 
    439 F.3d 592
    , 603 (9th
    Cir. 2006).
    Hong’s contentions that the BIA applied improper standards of law in
    denying her motion to reopen are belied by the record.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    07-74232
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-74232

Citation Numbers: 388 F. App'x 653

Judges: Alarcon, Graber, Leavy

Filed Date: 7/19/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023