Case Name: Huayu YAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-05
Citations: 592 F. App'x 598
Docket Number: No. 11-72623
Parties: Huayu YAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 592
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
Huayu YAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72623.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 3, 2015.
Filed Feb. 5, 2015.
David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
Lynda Do, Oil, 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: D.W. NELSON, BYBEE, and IKUTA, 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
Huayu Yan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in holding that Yan did not meet her burden of providing evidence establishing a material change in circumstances in her native China. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that the evidence presented by Yan in her motion to reopen was not qualitatively different from the evidence presented in her initial asylum petition. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-91 (9th Cir.2010); cf. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir.2004). Because Yan failed to show changed country conditions, her motion to reopen does not qualify for an exception from time and number limits. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yan's motion to reopen.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.