Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0705-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Da Juan WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 13, 2012.
    Oleh Roman Tustaniwsky, Esquire, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Da Juan Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Wang’s motion to reopen as untimely, where she filed the motion more than six years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Wang failed to demonstrate that there has been a material change in circumstances in China with respect to the government’s mistreatment of political dissidents, see Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir.2010); He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2007) (a change in personal circumstances does not establish changed country conditions).

Wang’s request for oral argument is denied.

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