Case Name: ZHENGBIN HE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-19
Citations: 388 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 08-70675
Parties: ZHENGBIN HE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 615–615

Head Matter:
ZHENGBIN HE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70675.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 19, 2010.
Zhengbin He, San Gabriel, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Hillel R. Smith, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Zhengbin He, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider and to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider, Cano-Mer-ida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying He's motion as untimely because He filed it more than a year after the BIA's order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) & (c)(2), and the motion failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.