FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QI Y. CHEN, AKA Qi Yao Chen, AKA No. 13-71817
Qiyao Chen, AKA Qu Y. Chen, AKA Qu
Yao Chen, AKA Wee Liang Tan, AKA Qi Agency No. A095-721-927
Yao,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges
Qi Y. Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s contentions regarding a pattern or
practice of persecution of Christians in China, or the potential impact of his prior
problems with the government in China on his well-founded fear, because he failed
to raise these issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not raised to the agency).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA reasonably determined Chen
failed to establish changed circumstances in China to qualify for an exception to
the time limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 13-71817