FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAI LE HUANG, No. 08-70884
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-539-172
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, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Hai Le Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision 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).
motions to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and
deny the petition for review.
Contrary to Huang’s contention that the BIA reviewed de novo whether she
demonstrated prima facie eligibility for relief, the BIA explicitly agreed with the
IJ’s prima facie finding. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.
2002) (“Where . . . the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated
portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the
BIA’s.”). The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Huang’s motion to reopen
because the IJ considered the evidence submitted and acted within his broad
discretion in determining Huang did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the
relief sought. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (even
assuming changed country conditions, the petitioner must demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings).
Huang’s contention that the agency failed to consider the evidence submitted
with the motion to reopen and that the IJ applied improper standards of law in
denying her motion to reopen are belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-70884