FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHENG YU, No. 09-70812
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-883-707
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Cheng Yu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to
reopen proceedings involving his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of Yu’s motion to
reopen for abuse of discretion, and we review purely legal questions, including
Yu’s due process claim, de novo. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.
2003).
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Yu’s motion as untimely. Yu
neither filed his motion to reopen within ninety days of the final administrative
order, nor satisfied the regulatory exception to this deadline by presenting new,
credible, and material evidence of changed conditions in China. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We reject Yu’s
contention that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the alien. See INS v.
Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 109-10 (1988) (explaining, in the context of a motion to
reopen deportation proceedings, that it has “never suggested that all ambiguities in
the factual averments must be resolved in the movant’s favor”). The BIA did not
abuse its discretion because the record indicates that it did not act arbitrarily,
irrationally, or contrary to law. See Caruncho v. INS, 68 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir.
1995).
Yu’s argument that his due process rights were violated because he was
deprived of a neutral adjudicator is unsupported by the evidence.
Petition for review DENIED.