Case Name: HANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-30
Citations: 534 F. App'x 675
Docket Number: No. 09-70790
Parties: HANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 534
Pages: 675–675

Head Matter:
HANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70790.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed July 30, 2013.
Hang Chen, Flushing, NY, pro se.
OIL, Mieheline K. Hershey, 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: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, 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
Hang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Chen's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than six years after her final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Chen failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991; He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2007) (a change in personal circumstances does not establish changed circumstances in the country of origin).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.