Case Name: SAIHUA GUO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-22
Citations: 396 F. App'x 398
Docket Number: No. 07-75143
Parties: SAIHUA GUO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 398–400

Head Matter:
SAIHUA GUO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-75143.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
Gary J. Yerman, Esquire, Law Office of Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Vanessa Lefort, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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
Saihua Guo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Guo's second motion to reopen as untimely because Guo filed it over five years after the agency issued its final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Guo failed to demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time or number limits for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988-989 (9th Cir.2009) (record did not establish change in family planning laws or enforcement of such laws that would establish changed country conditions excusing untimely motion to reopen); He, 501 F.3d at 1132 (the birth of children outside the country of origin is a change in personal circumstances that is not sufficient to establish changed circumstances in the country of origin excusing the untimely filing of a motion to reopen).
Guo's argument that she is entitled to reopen to file an asylum application is foreclosed by this court's decision in Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2008) (an alien may file an asylum application only in connection with a successful motion to reopen, subject to the time and number limitations).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.