FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONG TAO ZOU, No. 12-72643
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-165-845
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Yong Tao Zou, 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
denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Najmabadi v.
*
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).
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zou’s second motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred, because the motion was filed over eight
years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zou failed to
present material evidence of changed conditions in China to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-91; Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir.
2004) (regulatory exception does not extend to alleged changes in United States
asylum law).
Zou’s contentions that the BIA ignored arguments, or failed to adequately
explain its decision, are not supported. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532,
538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule, courts and agencies are not required to
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they
reach.”).
The BIA did not err in treating Zou’s challenge to the underlying adverse
credibility determination as a motion to reconsider and did not abuse its discretion
by denying it as untimely. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th
Cir. 2005) (BIA may construe motions based on their underlying purpose); 8
2 12-72643
C.F.R. § 1003.2(b) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of law or fact in the
BIA’s prior decision and be filed within 30 days of that decision). Nor did the BIA
err in treating Zou’s contentions regarding an alleged change in United States
asylum law as a request for sua sponte reopening. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at
793.
To the extent Zou challenges the underlying denial of asylum, withholding
of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture in the BIA’s December
12, 2002 order, we lack jurisdiction to review such a challenge because this
petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petitions for
review must be filed within 30 days of the order).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its
sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633
F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-72643