Jun Cheng Pan v. Holder , 389 F. App'x 713 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUL 29 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JUN CHENG PAN,                                   No. 07-75130
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A070-901-961
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted July 19, 2010 **
    Before:        B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    Jun Cheng Pan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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 Pan’s motion to reopen as
    untimely where the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s final
    administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Pan 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 also Lin v. Holder, 
    588 F.3d 981
    ,
    988-89 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not establish change in family planning laws or
    enforcement of such laws to show changed country conditions excusing untimely
    motion to reopen).
    Pan’s contention that he should have been permitted to file a successive
    asylum application is foreclosed. See 
    Lin, 588 F.3d at 989
    (rejecting petitioner’s
    contention that, independent from her motion to reopen, she was entitled to file a
    free-standing asylum application).
    Pan’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence submitted with
    the motion to reopen fails because he has not overcome the presumption that the
    BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 
    439 F.3d 592
    , 603 (9th Cir.
    2006).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   07-75130
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-75130

Citation Numbers: 389 F. App'x 713

Judges: Fletcher, Reinhardt, Wardlaw

Filed Date: 7/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023