NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
HUIYUN HUANG, No. 12-70254
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-316-219
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Huiyun Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Huang’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed over six years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Huang failed to present sufficient evidence of
changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether
circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not
have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future
persecution.”).
We reject Huang’s contention that the BIA misapplied Chen v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008). See Chen, 524 F.3d at 1030-32 (a petitioner subject
to a final order of removal must file a successive and untimely asylum application
with the BIA subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), which does not include an
exception to the time and number limits based on a change in personal
circumstances). Huang’s contention that the BIA required her to show a
“particular change” in country conditions is also unsupported by the record.
2 12-70254
Finally, we do not reach Huang’s contention that she is prima facie eligible
for relief because the BIA did not deny her motion on this basis. See Najmabadi,
597 F.3d at 986.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70254