Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0570-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YONGTAO ZOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72298.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 9, 2012.
    Robert George Ryan, Eugene Chi Ching Wong, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, Inc, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial, 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: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yongtao Zou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 885 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Zou’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than six years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zou failed to show the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling, see Singh, 658 F.3d at 884.

We lack jurisdiction over Zou’s contention regarding changed country conditions in China because he failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Zou’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

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