Case Name: LIJUN LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-29
Citations: 425 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 09-73196
Parties: LIJUN LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
LIJUN LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73196.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 29, 2011.
Lijun Liu, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kathryn McKinney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Lijun Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have juris diction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over two years after the BIA's final administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Liu failed to demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for an exception to the time limit for filing such motions, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986-990.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.