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 byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne 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).

T he H onor abl e R a l ph R . B e i s t l i ne , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJudge f orthe ** * D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

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 M IN G L I, 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. 07- 72941 A ge nc yN o. A 072- 962- 146 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 a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 5, 2009 ** L a s V e ga s , N e va da B ef ore: G O U L D and R A W L IN S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and B E IS T L IN E , D i stri ct Judg e. *** P e t i t i one rM i ng L i ( “ L i ” ) , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of the P e opl e ’ s R e publ i c of C h in a , p e titio n s f

o rr e v ie w o f

a n o r d e rb yth e B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls



# FI LED FEB 09 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

( “B I A ” ) d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n to f ile as u c c e s s iv e a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 1) a nd w e de nythe pe t i t i on. L i b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f

s h o w in g “c h a n g e dc o u n tryc o n d itio n s a r is in g in ” h is n a tiv e C h in ain o r d e rto p r e v a il o n h is m o tio n to r e o p e n , b e c au s e h e d idn o t f ile h is m o tio n w ith in n in e tyd a y s o f th e o r ig in a l r e m o v a l o r d e r . See 8 U . S. C. § 1 22 9a(c )( 7)(C )( i )–(i i ) ( re qu i ri ng thata pet i t i on ershow a c hang e i n cou ntry c o n d itio n s to a v o idth e n in e ty - d a ytim e b a r ) ; se e al so Chen v. Mukasey , 524 F . 3d 10 28 , 10 30 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( sam e) . T hi s burden h as no tbeen m et . T he B IA e x p lic itlya d d r e s s e da ll d o c u m e n tarye v id e n c e s u b m itte db yL i, a n dw a s w ith in its di sc re t i on i n con cl ud i ng thatthe evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh a m at er i al change i n enforcement of Ch i na’ s one-c hi l d p ol i cyagai nstsi m i l ar l y s i tuat ed in d iv idu a ls . See L i n v. H older , 58 8 F . 3d 98 1, 98 6 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). M or e ove r , the B I A rul e d c orr e c t l yw he n i the l d tha tL i c oul d note va de the ni ne ty - da yde a dl i ne of

§ 1229a ( c ) ( 7) byf

i l i ng af r e e - s t a ndi ng a s y l um appl i c a t i on u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . See Chen , 5 2 4 F .3 dat 1 0 3 2 (h o ld in g th e B IA ’s de t e rm i na t i on tha ta n a s y l um appl i c a t i on bya n a l i e n s ubj e c tt o af i na l or de rof re m ov alcan b e m ade onl y i n con nect i on w i th a m ot i on t o reopen u nd er § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) is “r e a s o n ab le , a n dw e d e f e rto it” ) .3

F in a lly , b e c au s e L i d idn o t m e e t h is th r e s h o ldb u r d e n to e s tab lis h m a te r ia lly changed con di t i on s i n C hi na, hi s m ot i on t o reopen for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e is lik e w is e u n tim e ly . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.