FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FANG CHENG, No. 11-72987
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-730-582
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013 **
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Fang Cheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider
and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS,
*
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).
311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cheng’s motion to
reconsider where the motion did not identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s
prior order denying her motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). The BIA
also did not abuse its discretion in construing the motion as a second motion to
reopen and denying it as time- and number-barred where Cheng failed to establish
that she qualified for any exception to the time and number limitations. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3).
To the extent Cheng challenges the BIA’s March 31, 2011 order denying her
motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to that
order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petitions for review must be filed within 30 days
of the order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-72987
Fang Cheng v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Combined Opinion