Case Name: XIU CHAI JIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-24
Citations: 517 F. App'x 575
Docket Number: No. 08-74758
Parties: XIU CHAI JIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: NOONAN, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 517
Pages: 575–575

Head Matter:
XIU CHAI JIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74758.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 19, 2013.
Filed April 24, 2013.
Gary J. Yerman, Esquire, Law Office of Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Ali Manuchehry, Esquire, Trial, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: NOONAN, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Xiu Chai Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the BIA's decision denying her second motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We dismiss in part and deny in part her petition for review.
The BIA has "broad discretion to grant or deny" motions to reopen immigration proceedings. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Jin failed to show reasonable cause for missing her exclusion hearing in 1993 and for delaying thirteen years before filing her first motion to reopen. Likewise, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it found that Jin failed to show changed circumstances in China sufficient to justify reopening immigration proceedings.
We lack jurisdiction to review Jin's claim to the extent she challenges the BIA's refusal to exercise its sua sponte discretion to reopen. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002); see also Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011) (reaffirming Ekimian).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.