Case Name: SHU XIONG DONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-09
Citations: 548 F. App'x 443
Docket Number: No. 12-71669
Parties: SHU XIONG DONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 443–443

Head Matter:
SHU XIONG DONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71669.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 9, 2013.
Shu Xiong Dong, New York, NY, pro se.
OIL, Colin J. Tucker, Trial, Micheline K. Hershey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Shu Xiong Dong, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an 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.
For a second time, Dong argues the BIA should have reopened his case based on changes in China's country conditions with respect to Falun Gong practitioners and based on the birth of his second child in the United States. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dong's motion to reopen as time-barred and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Dong failed to demonstrate he qualified for an exception to the limitations on motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (we "defer to the BIA's exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law") (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.