Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0093-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YINGXIN PANG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70436.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 21, 2009.
    Yingxin Pang, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yingxin Pang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pang’s motion to reopen because the new evidence submitted with the motion did not affect the agency’s determination that Pang lacked credibility, and Pang therefore did not establish prima facie eligibility for the underlying substantive relief sought. See id. at 785.

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