Xiao Zhu v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 550 F. App'x 531 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           DEC 26 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    XIAO LIN ZHU,                                    No. 12-72954
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A098-215-527
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 17, 2013**
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Xiao Lin Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
    removal proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    .
    *
    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).
    We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v.
    Holder, 
    646 F.3d 672
    , 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhu’s motion to reopen as
    untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more than six
    years after her removal order became final, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), and Zhu
    failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in China to qualify
    for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(3)(ii),
    or the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
    Avagyan, 
    646 F.3d at 679
     (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is
    prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due
    diligence in discovering such circumstances).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                      12-72954
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-72954

Citation Numbers: 550 F. App'x 531

Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, Graber

Filed Date: 12/26/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024