Case ID: f-appx_682/html/0561-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

QIANYUE WU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70831
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 15, 2017
    
      Margaret W. Wong, Esquire, Attorney, Margaret-W. Wong & Associates, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner
    Kohsei Ugumori, Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Qianyue Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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 Wu’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Wu failed to establish materially changed circumstances in China as to either of his claims to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-89 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). To the extent Wu contends his third child was born after his 2008 hearing, we reject his contention as contrary to the record..

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.