Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0448-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FENG LAN LI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71930.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 1, 2016.
    Feng Lan Li, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Monica Antoun, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of The Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Feng Lan Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than five years after her order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Li failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in China to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Lin, 588 F.3d at 989 (agency’s determination that petitioner did not establish material changed country conditions was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

We do not reach challenges Li raises to the agency’s original decision because they were addressed by this court in Li v. Holder, 316 Fed.Appx. 689 (9th Cir.2009).

The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on September 23, 2015, has expired. Respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.