Zhih Wu v. Loretta E. Lynch , 644 F. App'x 712 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHIH HUA WU, AKA John Doe, AKA No. 11-71879
Zhi Hua Wu,
Agency No. A072-094-123
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Zhih Hua Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the
*
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).
BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th
Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Wu’s third motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed over
seventeen years late, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate a
material change in circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception
to the time and number limits for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2009)
(the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying an untimely motion to reopen
where the record did not establish change in family planning laws or enforcement
of such laws); He, 501 F.3d at 1132 (change in personal circumstances does not
establish changed circumstances in country of origin). We reject Wu’s contentions
that the BIA failed to fully consider evidence he submitted with his motion and that
the BIA’s analysis was deficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990
(9th Cir. 2010) (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced
its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-71879