NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LI JUN SONG, No. 11-71612
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-292-832
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.
Li Jun Song, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. 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 Song’s motion to reopen
where the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final
administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Song failed to establish
materially changed circumstances arising in China to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2007)
(documentation insufficient to establish changed circumstances); see also
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (requiring that evidence of changed country conditions
“be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence presented at the previous hearing”)
(citation omitted).
Further, in light of our decision in Song v. Holder, No. 08-73864, 2010 WL
2354204 (9th Cir. June 11, 2010), we do not consider any challenge Song raises to
the agency’s underlying adverse credibility determination.
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Song’s requests for cancellation of
removal, adjustment of status, and humanitarian relief, because he did not present
those requests to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2 11-71612
2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review issues or claims not raised before the
agency).
Finally, we deny Song’s motions to not assign his case to a merits panel.
We also deny Song’s motion for oral argument.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-71612