N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YONG TAO ZOU, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72643 Age n c y No. A078-165-845 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Yong Ta o Zou, a

native and c i tiz e n

of C h ina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his motion to re o pe n. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re t ion the de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n a

nd re vie w de novo que stions of la w. N ajmabadi v . 

# FIL ED SEP 03 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Zou’ s se c ond m otion to re ope n a s untim e ly

and num be r-barre d, be c a

use the m otion wa s file d ove r e ight y e ars a fte r the B IA’ s fina l orde r, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), an d Zou fa ile d to pre s e nt m at e ria l e vide nc e of c ha nge d c onditions in China to qua lify for the re gula tory e xc e p tion to the

filing de a dline , se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii); N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 987-91; Azanor v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th C ir. 2004) (re gula

tory e x c e ption doe s not e xte nd to a lle ge d c ha nge s in Unite d State s a sy lum la w). Zou’ s c onte ntions tha

t the B IA ignore d a

rgum e nts, or fa ile d to a de q uate ly e xpla in its de c ision, a

re not supporte d. Se eSime o n ov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C i r. 2004) (“ As a ge ne ra l rule , c ourts a

nd a ge nc ie s a

re not re q u ire d to m ake findings on issue s the de c ision of whic h is unne c e ssa ry to the re sults they re a c h.” ). The B IA did not e rr in tre ating Zou’ s c ha lle nge to the unde rly ing a d ve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion a s a

m otion to re c onside r and did not a buse its disc re tion by de ny ing it a s untim e ly . S e e Mohamme d

v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th C ir. 2005) (B IA m ay c o n strue m otions ba se d on the ir unde rly ing purpose ); 8 1 2 - 7 2 6 4 3 2C .F.R . § 1003.2(b) (a m o tion to re c onside r m

ust spe c ify

e rrors of la

w or fa c t in the B IA’ s prior de c i sion a

n d be file d within 30 da

y s of tha t de c ision). Nor did the

B IA e rr in tre ating Zou’ s c onte ntions re ga rding a n a lle ge d c ha nge in Unite d State s a sy lum la w a s a re que st for sua

sponte re ope ning. S

e e Mohamme d , 400 F.3d a t 793. To the e xte nt Zou c ha l le nge s the unde rly ing de n i a l of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, or re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture in the B IA’ s De c e m b e r 12, 2002 orde r, we la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w suc h a c h a lle nge be c a

use this pe tition is not tim

e ly a s to tha t orde r. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(1) (pe titions for re vie w m ust be file d

within 30 da

y s of the orde r). Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision not to exe rc ise its sua sponte a

uthority to re ope n proc e e dings. Se eMe j ia-He r nande z v . Holde r , 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th C ir. 2011). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 2 - 7 2 6 4 3 3