FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHAOLIN LIU, No. 08-70866
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-347-964
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Zhaolin Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d
*
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).
1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu’s motion to reopen as
untimely because Liu filed it more than 90 days after the BIA issued its final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Liu failed to demonstrate changed country
conditions 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 Toufighi v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination
rendered evidence of changed country conditions immaterial).
We lack jurisdiction to review Liu’s contentions regarding the BIA’s July
15, 2005, order because his petition for review is not timely as to that order. See
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-70866