Case Name: SHIZENG ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-25
Citations: 412 F. App'x 943
Docket Number: No. 08-74163
Parties: SHIZENG ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 412
Pages: 943–944

Head Matter:
SHIZENG ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74163.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 25, 2011.
Shizeng Zhu, San Gabriel, CA, pro se.
Dana Michelle Camilleri, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, IDB-District Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel/Den-Boi, Department of Homeland Se curity, Denver, CO, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Shizeng Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, 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 Zhu's motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more than four years after the BIA's January 26, 2004, final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zhu failed to establish changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number filing limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief sought in order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.