Case Name: XIAO LIN 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: 2013-12-26
Citations: 550 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: No. 12-72954
Parties: XIAO LIN ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 550
Pages: 532–532

Head Matter:
XIAO LIN ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72954.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Dec. 26, 2013.
Adedayo O. Idowu, Esquire, Law Office of Adedayo O. Idowu, PLLC., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Bernard Joseph, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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
Xiao Lin Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and 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 six years after her removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zhu failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h), or the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.