FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 05 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUAYU YAN, No. 11-72623
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-179-336
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 3, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Huayu Yan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
denial of her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a),
and deny the petition for review.
*
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).
The BIA did not err in holding that Yan did not meet her burden of
providing evidence establishing a material change in circumstances in her native
China. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the evidence
presented by Yan in her motion to reopen was not qualitatively different from the
evidence presented in her initial asylum petition. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 987–91 (9th Cir. 2010); cf. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945–46 (9th
Cir. 2004). Because Yan failed to show changed country conditions, her motion to
reopen does not qualify for an exception from time and number limits. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)–(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)–(3). Accordingly, the
BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yan’s motion to reopen.
PETITION DENIED.
2