Jaing v. Holder


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              APR 16 2010
    
                                                                             MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    
    
    
    
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    
    
    
    JIN HONG JIANG, a.k.a. JIN HONT                  No. 07-74656
    JAING
                                                     Agency No. A072-994-299
                   Petitioner,
    
      v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    
                   Respondent.
    
    
    
                           On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                               Board of Immigration Appeals
    
                                  Submitted April 5, 2010 **
    
    Before:        RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
           Jin Hong Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
    
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
    
    immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen to file a successive
    
    asylum application. 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, Perez v. Mukasey, 
    516 F.3d 770
    , 773 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
    
          The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Jiang’s motion to reopen
    
    as untimely because Jiang filed it over ten years after the BIA issued its final
    
    removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Jiang failed to demonstrate
    
    changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
    
    limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); He v. Gonzales,
    
    
    501 F.3d 1128
    , 1132 (9th Cir. 2007).
    
           Jiang’s argument that he is entitled to file a successive asylum application is
    
    foreclosed by this court’s decision in Chen v. Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 1028
    , 1032 (9th
    
    Cir. 2008) (the BIA reasonably concluded that an alien could file a successive
    
    asylum application only in connection with a motion to reopen, subject to the time
    
    and number limitations).
    
          PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    
    
    
    
                                               2                                       07-74656
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: 07-74656

Filed Date: 4/16/2010

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/14/2013

Retrieved Date: 4/16/2010