FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEIEN LI, No. 13-71170
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-057-365
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Meien Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2001) (en banc), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and she has not demonstrated that an
exception to the time limitations on motions applies, see id; Socop-Gonzalez, 272
F.3d at 1193. Contrary to Li’s contention, the BIA adequately addressed her
contentions regarding the impact recent BIA decisions had on her eligibility for
relief under INA § 237(a)(1)(H). See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
Cir. 2010) (the BIA “must consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in
terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and
thought and not merely reacted”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s discretionary decision not to
reopen sua sponte pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez v.
Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Matter of G-D-, 22 I. & N.
Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999) (BIA’s consideration of whether a fundamental
change in the law warrants reopening involves an exercise of its sua sponte
authority).
2 13-71170
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Li’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-71170