FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUE CHAI ZHENG, a.k.a. Xue Chai No. 08-72776
Zheng,
Agency No. A077-957-602
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Sue Chai Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Lin v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Zheng’s motion to reopen
as untimely and numerically barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zheng failed
to demonstrate that there has been a material change in circumstances in China
with respect to the enforcement of the family planning policy in order to qualify
for the regulatory exception to these rules, see Lin, 588 F.3d at 988-89; see also He
v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007) (a change in personal
circumstances does not establish changed country conditions). We reject Zheng’s
contention that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence because she has not
overcome the presumption the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006); Lin, 588 F.3d at 987 (the BIA does
not need to refute every piece of evidence submitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72776