Case ID: f-appx_553/html/0709-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YANYUN REN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72296.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2014.
    Melanie Meie Yang, Esquire, Law Offices of Melanie M. Yang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kimberly A. Burdge, Esquire, Trial, OIL, 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: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Ren’s request for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yanyun Ren, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of 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, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ren’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ren failed to establish materially changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (new evidence “must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence presented at the previous hearing”).

We reject Ren’s contention that the BIA’s analysis was inadequate or ineom-píete. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”).

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