FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEIXIA YANG, No. 08-70190
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-281-666
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Meixia Yang, 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 denial of
*
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).
a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and
we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Yang’s motion to reopen
as untimely because Yang filed it over three years after the BIA issued its final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Yang 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.
Yang’s argument that she is entitled to file a successive asylum application
is foreclosed by this court’s decision in Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1032
(9th Cir. 2008) (an alien may file a successive asylum application only in
connection with a successful motion to reopen, subject to the time and number
limitations).
We reject Yang’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion in weighing
her submitted evidence because the BIA sufficiently explained that the evidence in
question was a copy of a translation and was not authenticated. See Ghaly v. INS,
58 F.3d 1425,1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (“All that we require is that the Board provide a
2 08-70190
comprehensible reason for its decision sufficient for us to conduct our review and
to be assured that the petitioner’s case received individualized attention.”).
Finally, we reject Yang’s contention that the BIA overlooked 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.
3 08-70190