Mei Zhu-Hong v. Loretta E. Lynch

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEI ZHU-HONG, AKA Hong Mei Zhu, No. 12-71856
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-751-155
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mei Zhu-Hong, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reconsider and
reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of motions to
*
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).
reopen and reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002),
and we deny the petition for review.
Our review is limited to the administrative record, so we do not consider
materials referenced in the opening brief that were not part of the record before the
agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
In construing Zhu-Hong’s motion as a motion to reconsider, the BIA did not
abuse its discretion in denying it because Zhu-Hong failed to specify any error of
fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
In construing Zhu-Hong’s motion as a motion to reopen, the BIA did not
abuse its discretion in denying it because Zhu-Hong filed her fourth motion over
nine years after she was ordered removed in absentia, and she failed to demonstrate
changed circumstances in China to qualify for an exception to the time limitations
for a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure
to establish materially changed country conditions).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider any contention petitioner makes that
2 12-71856
her case warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz–
Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-71856