FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUI-QIN ZHU, No. 11-72491
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-342-360
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hui-Qin Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion a motion to
reopen, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition
for review.
*
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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhu’s third motion to reopen
as untimely and number-barred because it was filed over twelve years after the
agency’s final administrative decision and Zhu did not show changed
circumstances in China in order to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing
deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii); Lin, 588 F.3d at 988–89 (record
did not show material change in enforcement of family planning laws sufficient to
establish changed country conditions and excuse an untimely motion to reopen);
He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007) (a change in personal
circumstances does not establish changed country conditions). We reject Zhu’s
contention that the BIA’s case law indicates a change in China. We also reject
Zhu’s contention that the BIA did not consider all the evidence she submitted. See
Lin, 588 F.3d at 987 (“[A]lthough the BIA must consider a petitioner’s evidence of
changed country conditions, it need not expressly refute on the record every single
piece of evidence.”). In light of our conclusion, we do not reach Zhu’s remaining
contentions.
Finally, we deny Zhu’s request for judicial notice. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-72491