Lihuan Sun v. Loretta E. Lynch , 616 F. App'x 279 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 08 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIHUAN SUN, aka Song Hui Kim, No. 11-71710
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-440-854
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 3, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,*** Chief
District Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 2
Lihuan Sun, a native of China who claims to be a citizen of North Korea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying her motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial
of the motion for abuse of discretion. Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d
1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sun’s motion to reopen.
Sun’s motion was untimely filed, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and Sun failed
to present sufficient evidence of changed conditions in China or North Korea to
overcome her delay, see id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Sun did submit evidence that
North Korean authorities had forcibly taken her family to a labor camp, which she
claimed was punishment for their efforts assisting refugees in fleeing the country,
as well as evidence that China had recently “intensified” its “crackdown” against
North Korean refugees and those aiding their escape. But none of the evidence
that she has submitted was qualitatively different from the evidence she submitted
at her initial asylum hearing. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987, 989
(9th Cir. 2010). The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Sun failed
to produce evidence that conditions had materially changed in China or North
Korea. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008), as amended.
PETITION DENIED.