Case ID: f-appx_381/html/0693-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XIAO GUANG LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70908.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 3, 2010.
    Charles Christophe, Christophe & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xiao Guang Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen and rescind an exclusion order entered in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Lin’s motion to reopen, because the agency considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).

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.