FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAOZEN YE, a.k.a. Shao Zhen Ye, No. 07-73284
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-087-376
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.
Shaozen Ye, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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 suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Ye filed a motion to reopen based on the birth of two children in the United
States. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ye’s motion to reopen as
untimely because she filed it 11 years after the BIA issued its final order, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ye failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in
China 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); see also He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128,
1132 (9th Cir. 2007) (the birth of children outside the country of origin is a change
in personal circumstances that is not sufficient to establish changed circumstances
in the country of origin excusing the untimely filing of a motion to reopen).
We lack jurisdiction to review Ye’s contention that there has been a change
in the family planning practices in her home province in China because she did not
raise this to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 07-73284