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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2011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
JUNNING SHI, No. 08-73332
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-521-428
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.
Junning Shi, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.
2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
To the extent Shi seeks to challenge the BIA’s 2003 order affirming the
immigration judge’s decision denying Shi’s application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, we lack jurisdiction
because Shi’s petition for review is untimely as to that decision. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1); Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (en
banc).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Shi’s motion to reopen,
because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Shi failed to present
sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in order to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (requiring movant to produce material
evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had
changed).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 08-73332