Case ID: f-appx_397/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DIEN HSING JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71125.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2010.
    Theodore Cox, Esquire, Law Offices of Theodore Cox, Joshua E. Bardavid, Esquire, Law Office of Joshua Bardavid, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Kristin Edison, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ — 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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dien Hsing Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion entitled “motion to file successive asylum application pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.4 or in the alternative motion to reopen.” We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the BIA’s legal conclusions and due process contentions, see Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Jiang’s argument that he is entitled to file a successive asylum application based on changed personal circumstances in the United States is foreclosed by this court’s decision in Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1031-32 (9th Cir.2008) (an alien may file a successive asylum application only in connection with a successful motion to reopen, subject to time and number limitations). Jiang’s contention that his removal will violate international treaty law is also foreclosed by Chen. See id. at 1033. Because Jiang was only entitled to file his successive asylum application in connection with a motion to reopen, see id. at 1031-32, the BIA did not err in construing his motion as a motion to reopen. Jiang does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s finding that the motion was untimely and numerically-barred, and that Jiang failed to established changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to these bars.

Finally, Jiang’s contentions that the BIA violated his due process rights lack merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (holding petitioner must demonstrate error to prevail on a due process claim).

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.