T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T HU I YU N H UA NG , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 12- 70254 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 316- 219 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H ui yun H uang, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng her m ot i on t o reopen r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED SEP 30 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 70254 2 ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . N

aj m ab ad iv. H

older , 5 9 7 F . 3 d9 8 3 , 9 8 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng H uang ’ s m ot i on t o reopen as un t i m el y bec ause the m ot i on w as fi l ed ov ersi x years af t erthe B IA ’ s f

i nal order, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , a nd H uang f a i l e d t o pr e s e nts uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e of c h a n g e dc i r c u ms t an c e s i n Ch i n at o q u a l i f yf o rth e r e g u l a t o rye x c e p t i o n t o th e t i me lim it f o rf ilin g m o tio n s to r e o p e n , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; M al t y v . A s h c r o ft , 38 1 F . 3d 94 2, 94 5 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( “ T he cr i t i ca l qu es t i on i s . . . w hether c i r c um s t a nc e s ha ve c hange d s uf f i c i e nt l ytha tape t i t i one rw ho pr e vi ous l ydi d not have a l egi t i m at e c l ai m for a sy l um no w has aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . ”) . W e r e j e c tH uang’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe B I A m i s appl i e d Chen v. Mukasey , 5 2 4 F .3 d1 0 2 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . See Chen , 52 4 F . 3d at10 30 -32 (a pet i t i on ersubj ec t t o af i na l or de rof

r e m ova l m us tf

i l e as uc c e s s i ve a nd unt i m e l ya s y l um appl i c a t i on w i th the B IA subj ec tt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9a(c )( 7), w hi ch do es no ti ncl ud e an exce pt i on t o the t i m e and nu m ber l i m i t s bas ed on a c hang e i n p er sonal c i r c u m s t a n c e s ) . Hu an g ’ s c o n t e n t i o n th a tth e B I A r e q u i r e dh e rt o s h o w a “p a rtic u larc h an g e ” in c o u n tryc o n d itio n s is a ls o u n s up p o rte db yth e r e c o r d .12- 70254 3 F in a lly , w e d o n o t r e a c h H u an g ’s c o n te n tio n th a t s h e is p r im af a c ie e lig ib le f o rr e lie f b e c au s e th e B I A d idn o t d e n yh e rm o tio n o n th is b a s is . Se e N ajm abadi , 597 F . 3d a t986. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.