Case Name: XINCHENG AN, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-06
Citations: 589 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 14-60099
Parties: XINCHENG AN, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
XINCHENG AN, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-60099
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 6, 2015.
Donglai Yang, Law Office of Donglai Yang, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
Nicole N. Murley, Tangerlia Cox, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Xincheng An, a native and citizen of China, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings (he was ordered to be removed to China in 2011). He contends the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely because he met the changed-eircumstances exception due to China's enforcement of its population control policies. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Pursuant to our highly deferential review of the denial of a motion to reopen, Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir.2005), An has not shown the • BIA abused its discretion in concluding the exception did not apply. E.g., Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632-33 (5th Cir.2005).
DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.