Changguo Yu v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHANGGUO YU, No. 12-73457
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-057-944
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Changguo Yu, 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
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
*
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).
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. The
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Yu’s second
motion to reopen because the motion was filed nine years after his final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3)(i), 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A) (an alien has 180
days to file a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order if the alien can show
that she failed to appear for the hearing due to exceptional circumstances), and Yu
failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling, see Avagyan
v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011), or establish materially changed
country conditions so as to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 987 (new evidence “must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence
presented at the previous hearing”).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Yu’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-73457