Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0723-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MING JIN; Ruifen Wan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73378.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
    Ming Jin, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
    
      Ruifen Wan, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
    Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Trial, Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ming Jin and Ruifen Wan, natives and citizen of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over a year after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mu-kasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (in order to prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, petitioner must produce “new facts” shoving changed conditions that now establish a prima facie case for relief).

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