NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUN FU LI, No. 12-73113
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-543-613
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ, MURGUIA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jun Fu Li petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We deny the
petition in part and dismiss it in part.
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s concededly
*
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).
untimely motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The BIA properly
determined that Li’s failure to file a new asylum application was fatal to his
motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings for the purpose
of submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by the appropriate
application for relief and all supporting documentation.”); see also Young Sun Shin
v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming BIA’s denial of
motion to reopen because petitioner failed to present evidence of an approved visa
as required to establish “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought”).
2. We lack jurisdiction to consider Li’s challenge to the BIA’s decision
not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. Sharma v.
Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
2