FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YINGMING ZHANG, No. 10-72357
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-345-998
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Yingming Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based
on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria 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).
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhang’s motion to reopen
where he filed the motion more than four years after the BIA issued its final order
of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), failed to demonstrate the due diligence
required to obtain equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d
at 897, and failed to present any evidence of changed circumstances in China in
order to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Because the BIA’s untimeliness determination was dispositive, we do not
address Zhang’s remaining contentions.
We deny Zhang’s motion for judicial notice of documents that were not
presented to the BIA. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-72357