Dan Lin v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAN FENG LIN, No. 08-72548
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-997-915
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Dan Feng Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 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).
denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.
2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s motion to reopen as
untimely because Lin filed it over three years after the BIA issued its final removal
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lin failed to demonstrate changed country
conditions, including a change in laws or the enforcement of family planning laws,
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); Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988-989 (9th
Cir. 2009); He, 501 F.3d at 1132-33.
We reject Lin’s contention that the BIA erred in its evaluation of the
evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). We also reject Lin’s contention that the
BIA did not adequately examine her evidence because she has not overcome the
presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72548