FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIN HONG JIANG, a.k.a. JIN HONT No. 07-74656
JAING
Agency No. A072-994-299
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jin Hong Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen to file a successive
asylum application. We have jurisdiction under 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 is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d
770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Jiang’s motion to reopen
as untimely because Jiang filed it over ten years after the BIA issued its final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Jiang 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); He v. Gonzales,
501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007).
Jiang’s argument that he 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) (the BIA reasonably concluded that an alien could file a successive
asylum application only in connection with a motion to reopen, subject to the time
and number limitations).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-74656