FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BIAO ZHENG, No. 12-73174
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-337-305
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Biao Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse 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).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674
(9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Zheng’s contentions regarding whether he received proper notice were
addressed in this court’s prior decision in Biao Zheng v. Holder, 423 Fed. Appx.
699 (9th Cir. 2011) ( hearing notice was sent by certified mail to the address last
provided by Zheng and he failed to timely inform the immigration court of his
address change).
To the extent Zheng now contends that the agency abused its discretion in
denying his motion to reopen because he was not sufficiently apprised of the
change-of-address requirement, Zheng’s contention fails. Zheng was personally
served with an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and there was no statutory
requirement that the OSC be orally translated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1) (1992).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng’s motion to reopen
based on changed country conditions where Zheng failed to supply any evidence of
a material change in circumstances in China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-73174