Case Name: JIAN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-14
Citations: 523 F. App'x 471
Docket Number: No. 11-70286
Parties: JIAN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 523
Pages: 471–472

Head Matter:
JIAN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70286.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2013.
Filed June 14, 2013.
Jian Zhang, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, OIL, 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: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jian Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 an abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhang's motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than seven years after the final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and Zhang did not demonstrate there was a material change in circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2007) (a change in personal circumstances does not establish changed country conditions), and did not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equita bly tolled "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence").
Petitioner's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.